User talk:Rjanag/Archive7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rjanag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following is the archive of User talk:Rjanag for August to December 2009.

Archives

1: August–October 2008

2: November 2008
3: December 2008
4: January–February 2009
5: March–April 2009
6: May–July 2009
7: August–December 2009
8: January–May 2010

9: June 2010 – present

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your deletion of my page "HARVEY W. BARNHILL"

I added HARVEY W. BARNHILL to the list of PILOTS in ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY, then added a biography page for Barnhill linked from the list of PILOTS. You immediately deleted the bio page, but left his name listed in the list of PILOTS. The reason sighted is that it is an individual without indication of his importance.

I was beginning an extensive effort to add the names & biographies of the Alaska Bush Pilots from the pioneer era 1920 - 1940. I have researched & developed bios on over 100 pioneer Alaska bush pilot who contributed to Alaska aviation during this period. I also was going to add to the list of DEFUNCT AIRLINES in the ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY section.

HARVEY W. BARNHILL was one of the very early bush pilots. He & LINIOUS McGEE founded BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS, which became McGEE AIRWAYS (one of the earliest airlines in Alaska). BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS became McGEE AIRWAYS which sold to STAR AIR SERVICE, which became STAR AIRLINES which with mergers & acquisitions became ALASKA STAR AIRLINES, which became the ALASKA AIRLINES of today. I had planned to add HARVEY W. BARNHILL & LINIOUS McGEE bios, then BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS, then McGEE AIRWAYS, all appropriately linked. This initial set of 4 pages would begin adding factual useful info on Alaska Aviation History not presently covered in Wikipedia.

How do you want me to proceed??

Signed - RoyDickson (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - I also added some birth & death years to several of the PILOTS in the list that were missing dates. These edits were not deleted.

The article was deleted because it gave no indication of why this person is notable; it basically just said that he did his job, and doesn't say why he was significant. Wikipedia has a strict notability guideline for biographies, which you should skim before you try to write a new article. I have the ability to restore your Harvey Barnhill article, but not without evidence of why this individual meets the notability guidelines.

Also, as a side note: the article was full of grammar and style errors, to the point that it was almost unreadable. Please proofread your work before you add it to Wikipedia. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Chow Green Hornet edits

Actually, having this information on the Wiki IS relevant, because many people are unaware that he is not involved with Green Hornet any longer, and a Wiki page is supposed to be INFORMATIVE AND FACTUAL. Glossing over this bit of history is cleansing his professional history and providing a disservice to fans/readers by omission of relevant history.

In fact, when I have the time I will add a paragraph talking about this sad chapter for Stephen Chow fans. Hollywood kicked Mr. Chow in the teeth. The wiki should document professional successes AND professional failures. It is his LIFE, after all.

75.140.110.87 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep removing my article

Every time I post my bio article on Harvey W. Barnhill - you (or someone else) deletes it. I have tried to explain to you that I am attempting to add bio information on the Alaska Bush Pilots of the pioneer 1920 -1940 era, as well as history articles on the airlines in Alaska during this period, all of which are now defunct. These pilots & airlines contributed much to the development of Alaska before statehood as supported by the Alaska Centennial Commission, The Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum, University of Alaska Press / Film Archives, etc. As far as I can tell you don't even give me an explanation other than your original cryptic criticism. I have rewritten the article & reposted it twice but it keeps disappearing. Besides the criticism do you have any constructive suggestions on how to accomplish this objective, or should I just quit wasting a considerable amount of time trying to develop the understanding to contribute? Plz do me the honor of replying. RoyDickson (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are just terrible

You are terrible!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

ChapmanHB (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of the article on the 12th Lord Belhaven and Stenton was an outrage. Do the right thing and restore it.--ChapmanHB (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)ChapmanHB

I have restored it because it looks like the original tagging was in error. In the future, though, when making a request like this, please explain why you think the page should be restored, rather than just claiming it is an "outrage". You were lucky enough that I bothered to look into this request; in the future if you are this polite with other administrators, they are likely to just ignore you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request Comment

I'd like to request your comment regarding moving Bing (search engine) to Bing at Talk:Bing#Requested_move. Thanks! Smallman12q (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a comment, or do you wish to refrain from leaving a remark?Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, now to find what primary topic means=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a response (a chart which shows how many page views Bing got before and after the search engine) and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_is_defines_a_topic_as_being_the_.22Primary_Topic.22 to better determine what makes up a primary topic. I am always welcome to your remarks. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kadeer photo rebound

Someone's trying to (once again) add the photo controversy story into the Rebiya Kadeer article and actually started a talkpage-string. Maybe you could comment as well. I know we greed to exclude it, but I don't completely recall the rationale. thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

déjà vu?

isn't chinahistorian our "special friend" from last month? seems like he dug up the Kadeer children's letter... Seb az86556 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, same guy. I just saw his edits and reverted them, for now he's moved on to Mao Zedong. Will try to stay near the computer for the meantime to see whether he's actually run away, or is just planning on emerging with more cries of censorship. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I think you were too lenient -- the letter-story has to be kept out. Once someone's children are being dragged into the deal, WP:BLP is definitely breached, doesn't matter what source it is. So I completely X-ed it. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call; I think you were right to remove it. I was hurrying and not thinking carefully about what it said, and plus I figure the less heavy-handed I am with ChinaHistorian the less likely he is to start being a problem again, so I was hesitant to do a full-out revert...but I agree that the stuff doesn't belong there yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps user box

Can you look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#GA_Sweeps_review_userbox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Leehom move

Thanks, I'll be sure to check those, as soon as I finish editing the spelling within the article. SilkRoadEdge (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at Wikipedia:Double redirects and followed the method outlined there to search on Pages that link to "Leehom Wang" for possible double redirects. If I followed directions correctly, it looks like you took care of all of the double redirects. Thanks again for all your help. SilkRoadEdge (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Is it possible to unfreeze Fred Singer and keep discussion of the disputed section in the Fred Singer talk page (as has been tried repeatedly in good faith by GoRight and others, including myself) till the disputed section is resolved without requiring a freezing of the whole article?--there is a certain aspect of "tag teaming" which I think underlies the current reverting difficulties. The reverts are often accompanied by snide remarks/no or perfunctory justification and the talk page gets much worse. An example: "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years ~~is a politically motivated crock of shit~~...." [strikethrough was in original and was meant as a sarcastic insult--see other similar insults directed at GoRight and others in the same section], so I think GoRight is getting a bad rap here--he has honestly been trying to add balance (whether I/others agree with him or not) and trying to get civil discussions going without much success. The current issue is how to deal with "sourced" ad hominem labels in a held-to-a-higher-standard Biography of living persons. I'm not sure reverts attempting ensure consensus gathering should be viewed as being of the same form as those trying to avoid it, either.

Btw, the version frozen in place was the one reverted to by the editor holding the "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years ~~is a politically motivated crock of shit~~...." animus. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are leaving this message with me; I am not the person who protected the article (User:Cbrown1023 is) and I have been defending User:GoRight anyway.

As for your question, I believe protecting the article was an appropriate move on Cbrown's part and I do not feel comfortable unfreezing it at the moment. The edit warring between you and Stephan Schulz so soon after the previous protection was removed is shameful, on both parts, and no admin will unfreeze the article until they are confident that you guys and other editors will stop revert warring over this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have been defending User:GoRight anyway." - I do appreciate your handling of the matter, and I do recognize that you could easily have decided to fall on the opposite side of the fence as it was. I have no problems at all with the constraints you have articulated and I don't intend to abuse your trust in this matter. Regarding the second page protection by Cbrown1023 under the circumstances it would probably be best to let that one stick, IMHO. Plenty can be discussed on talk anyway and its not like the topics being discussed will determine the state of the free world (at least any time soon!). Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that this second page protection is appropriate. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"I don't know why you are leaving this message with me;" You had just been active in the administrative effort to achieve appropriate discourse. I also had not noted that full protection did allow eventual changes as approved by the admin & that someone later pointed out to me. I do not disagree that the freeze is appropriate--that was absolutely not my point . It just seemed to be an awfully blunt instrument for an effort to take a single, ad hominem remark (however weakly worded) out of the article while consensus was being sought in talk (which was very clearly requested in my two edits on this very specific ad hom--BLP has specific related exceptions to the 3rr rule--I am unclear as to why adhering to those guidelines constitutes "shameful" behavior, but that's my problem.). The Singer article is in a perpetual state of stasis for the very reason that all such efforts to improve neutrality are immediately reverted by a cadre of what I would call "true believers." I was trying to (unshamefully) move it to where Wikipedia states it belongs. If it is a hopeless cause, it is a hopeless cause.

"I have been defending User:GoRight anyway." I also left a message with the admin who protected the page, but haven't received a response, and my inclusion of the GoRight material was part of the discussion on that admin's page--I should have removed it when copying my concerns here as I believe it confused the issue: I wasn't implying any criticism of you. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanks a lot for your wishes. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY

I have been trying to add a lot of important info on early Alaska aviation history. I have a lot of well researched info on the pioneer bush pilots of the 1920 - 1940 era, as well as info on the many airlines formed during this period, that through many mergers, ended up being Alaska Airlines and a part of Delta Airlines. I added some birth & death dates to your existing list of pilots, and added the names of about 90 additional bush pilots of the 1920 - 1940 era. These are all notable pioneers who contributed to the development of Alaska which was and continues to be so dependent on aviation. All of these pilots were honored by the ALASKA CENTENNIAL COMMISSION in 1967. YOU DELETED ALL MY ADDITIONS WITHOUT COMMENT! YOU EVEN DELETED SEVERAL OF THE PILOTS IN YOUR ORIGINAL LIST! You changed the "PILOT" heading to "NOTABLE PILOTS." You even deleted a pilot from the original list who was also a Territorial Senator from Alaska and one of the authors and signers of the Alaska State Constitution! YOU HAVE ALSO DELETED MOST OF THE ARTICLES I HAVE SUBMITTED EITHER WITHOUT COMMENT OR WITH SOME RUDE COMMENTS indicating that IN YOUR JUDGMENT these people or airlines were not NOTABLE enough! Perhaps the Alaska Centennial Commission and the Alaska Historians are much better judges of who & what is notable than you are! Wikipedia does not have much information on this important subject of Alaska Aviation History. For example, the article on ALASKA AIRLINES is a very short stub and the flag ASKS for contributions of more information. I am trying to add information on the 14 airlines that became Alaska Airlines and the 100 or so pioneer bush pilots who started it all. IS THERE SOMEONE AT WIKIPEDIA I CAN WORK WITH that is a lot MORE HELPFUL and a lot LESS RUDE? PLEASE ADVISE! RoyDickson (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to work things out with you.Smallman12q (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish

No need for email as far as I'm concerned. I'm tired of wikipedia and don't like who I am here. I'm not just switching accounts; I'm gone for good. I think that's reason enough? Arxack (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY

After your initial (and only) message to me about removing the Barnhill article, I rewrote and resubmitted the article which you removed again without any message that I can locate. So, what is the answer to my question: "Is there someone I can work with that is a LOT MORE HELPFUL and A LOT LESS RUDE?" - answer YES or NO?? RoyDickson (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

while we're at it....

while we're at it, I need a legal opinion regarding the Griqualand East-article:

So that country printed its own money in 1867 and burnt/destroyed most of those banknotes shortly after that 'cause they realized the idea was total junk and wouldn't work. Only a handful of those notes remain, and the copyright has definitely expired (1867, US+100, SAfr.+70).

And then there's this guy who takes a picture of one of those rare pieces, posts it on the web, and claims he now has the copyright. Hm?

Is that a legal claim?(e.g. If I Photoshop it, can I use it?)
Or does that mean "this specific photo I took is mine and I own it"?

thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe he can claim copyright on that. But I'm not super-experienced with copyright stuff; you might be able to get a more informed answer if you post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The people at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions said the same thing. So I uploaded it, and it's in the article. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maths

Hi. Are you seriously of the opinion that 6x9=42 (base 13) requires a citation? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it the fact itself requires a citation; I said I am "seriously" of the opinion that claiming a connection between this fact and Douglas' reason for making 42 is original research. It's synthesis of known facts in attempt to support speculation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited it specifically so that it didn't make that connection, but fair enough. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning it there at all implies a connection. Wikipedia articles are not the places for making personal commentaries on what might be; if a source isn't found, this speculation should be removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Media articles

Hi Rjanag. I have noticed your work on the Epoch Times and I think your objectivity and editing experience can also be used at other articles that deal with Falun Gong media and PR organizations such as NTDTV, Shen Yun Performing Arts etc. All of these articles desperately need to be checked for POV, with some of the articles being constantly abused by one particular user. Colipon+(T) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The user I mentioned above has engaged in serious content and policy violations with Falun Gong related content. He violates WP:OWN and often reverts changes intermittently with dubious reasoning and shows little respect to other peoples' views. He constantly throws out personal attacks and his blanking of content has become very methodical and often turns away good faith editors like OhConfucius and myself. He has been cautioned endlessly on his talk page and has been banned in the past. His abuse is immediately visible if you check his contributions. He needs to be topic-banned (or banned completely) as soon as possible, much like the pro-CCP anti-Uyghur "User:ChinaHistorian" on the Urumqi riots articles. I was wondering if you could help me through this process. Colipon+(T) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have generally stayed away from FLG articles because it's too much drama for me (other than the Urumqi riots, almost all the articles I work on are ones that only get a few views per day). But I can try to look into this user. From my quick glance now, I don't see grounds for a complete ban, as he appears to make some constructive or uncontroversial edits as well (for example, this) and appears to edit the talkpages more than the articles themselves. If you can supply diffs or specific page histories and dates to show revert warring, OWNership, and personal attacks, that would be useful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

His talk page is overflowing with bans and users fed up with his POV-pushing, actually. I will try to search for some diffs too. There are too many. But it's hard to dig up with these FLG articles because no version is ever stable... Colipon+(T) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADilip_rajeev&diff=288338716&oldid=288322046 (Bunch of sockpuppet allegations and attempts at defending himself). Also, his anti-Cult stance at Sathya Sai Baba is notable, as the organization wrote a blog against him detailing his "smears" of the article on Wikipedia. There is also his own website praising Falun Gong - indicating a clear conflict of interest. There's countless other cases of him insulting and attacking other users on talk pages. I just don't have time to dig thru them all. If you need them I'll keep digging though. Colipon+(T) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I back Colipon up. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do in this case would be to open up an RFC/U about the user. His long block log and extensive warnings are, obviously, worrisome, but to be honest in the diffs you give me I don't see anything immediately blockable; while it is obvious that this user has problems, the particular diffs aren't anywhere near ChinaHistorian level, and he looks more like just a user with a bad attitude and a POV but not necessarily a worthless user. For instance:

[1] Probably shouldn't be edit-warring or removing that from discussion, but at least he is claiming a logical (although not necessarily valid or correct) reason for wanting to remove it.
[2] Misinterpreting a style guideline ("Criticism" sections are discouraged, but not 100% banned) and doing it for POV reasons...but this is just bad editing, it's nowhere near as egregious as what some people do
[3] Another problematic edit which probably was motivated by the wrong reasons (trying to whitewash out Li Hongzhi-ism); the original source says "It has a set of writings by the leader that are taken as true beyond the level of truth that you would regard a normal author as having. That is, they're gospel in some sense. That the teacher, the leader, is regarded as being greater and more powerful than normal human beings; that the things that that teacher says are taken as truer and more real and more powerful than anything else, anybody else says, and that there is a well developed, I would call theology, but possibly doctrine, that includes morality, practice and a whole complete world view. So it looks like a religion to me.". Taken by itself this is not necessarily a horrible edit--if you only read the last sentence of that paragraph, rather than the whole thing, you could take it to be saying something like what the editor rephrased it to, although if you read the whole paragraph it's clear that the original version is more accurate. Although of course, as part of a greater trend, I would say this is a legitimate problem edit.
[4] Actually he's not calling NYT a fringe theory, he's saying the supposedly racist part of FLG is a fringe part and doesn't need to be mentioned. This I would call a legitimate content disagreement (even if he's wrong, it's still a content disagreement and not a behavior problem).
[5] Definitely bad writing and overly promotional (he pays lip service to a criticism of the group, in just one sentence, but then 'counters' it in the next sentence, and 95% of the edit is positive anyway), but not blockable in of itself.

Anyway, my reason for discussing all those diffs is not to defend the user or say that I agree with his editing, but to point out that, while he is a problem editor, he hasn't done anything block-able and there's not really anything I myself can do about this. The best thing you guys can do, as far as I know, is file an RFC/U so that more editors can discuss this user's actions and decide what to do. If any action is taken, I imagine it would be to sanction this user against editing FLG articles directly, and have him agree instead to only post suggestions/comments on talk pages (essentially, an FLG-wide topic ban from article editing...I don't see any reason to ban him from talkpage editing, unless you can produce evidence that he is deliberately trolling or otherwise being disruptive). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of PILOTS / NOTABLE PILOTS in Alaska Aviation History

In one of your previous replies to my messages, you mentioned the name of the contributor who deleted the PILOTS category and replaced it with NOTABLE PILOTS and eliminated most of what had been listed both before my edits and after my edits. I do not seem to be able to find that contributors ID so I can contact him to discuss this list (in helpful positive ways.) Would you please resend me his contact ID? Thank you in advance. RoyDickson (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Standards

I would like to thankyou for your continued participation with me in helping Roy Dickson. I looked at his last edit at Talk:History_of_aviation_in_Alaska#Long_list_of_pilots and he raised the question as to what are the criteria for listing pilots. I've looked at Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability and none list the criteria for listing notable pilots. Could you point me to somewhere it does, or give me some criteria that I can pass on?(I've also started a thread at WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_of_pilots. Thanks. Smallman12q (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You probably want WP:NLIST (notability criterion for lists of people), and WP:ANYBIO (general notability guideline for people). Most notability guides are not relevant because they tend to be about whether something is notable enough for its own article, rather than notable enough to be in a list. For lists, the concern is more with style guidelines than notability per se; the question is whether an article benefits from a giant list of people for whom significance isn't demonstrated (ie, people who have done nothing other than have a career). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've redone Barnhill & McGee Airways, let me know what you think of it.Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Thanks for stepping in and assisting here. I'll agree with most of your comments, it could have been handled better. Inurhead has been, in the past, very difficult to bring to a discussion, any discussion. I'll try to do better. Would you be willing to talk to Inurhead about his accusations he's raising in various places? I don't really like being labeled (even by him) as something I'm not. Yup, I know I've called him a SPA, something that's very, very clear from his history. The sock thing, he's reacting to multiple editors disagreeing with him, not by any evidence. And no, for the record, I'm not a sock of anyone. Again, thanks! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD The Universe of Myron Evans

I put The Universe of Myron Evans on AfD. Since you agreed w/ deletion but deletion was contested, you might be interested in commenting Seb az86556 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Inappropiate AIV reports and warnings

Thanks. See, there is still some policies I haven't read. Chevy Impala 2009 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hangon/notice

Hey - great addition to the hangon template. Not sure if you knew this, but it actually went live already (because it was already in the hangon main template)... it still contained what looked like two links to example.com - one of which I've fixed - the other (purge) I'm still trying to figure out how to fix because the parser wants to add action=edit which is overriding action=purge. I've also requested protection on the page to match the hangon template. Hope I didn't mess you up. Regards 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok - figured out the purge template (duh). Still - think the page should probably be protected. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I RPP'd and it's now protected... so people like me can't help out ;) 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I feel bad...I thought I had fixed the links and protected it, and I guess I did neither! Thanks for catching all of that and taking care of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I was a bit surprised when I saw Example.com on an article I had CSD'd... thought someone was trying to get tricky. But I really do like the feature - big improvement... perhaps just some font color adjustments and it will be perfect (redlink talk page is a bit hard to see against the red background). Thanks. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this look? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Just watching your edits there now... wondering, was the {{purge}} template not appropriate, or is the includeonly just a better approach (trying to improve my template coding skills). 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the {{purge}} template was fine (in fact, I never new about that template, and it's rather nice; a lot more concise than the other means), but since I had already used {{fullurl}} for the other instance, I figured it would be more consistent. As for the includeonlys, I'm not sure what happened there....I thought by having subst statements in includeonly it would cause there to be a link when the template is transcluded, without having transcluded {{fullurl}}s within the transcluded template, but when I tried it out in my sandbox it didn't work, so I just removed the subst's. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. JFYI - the way I found {{purge}} was by checking the WP:UAA header... as you can see my first attempt at hardcoding "action=purge" didn't work at all. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks really good now! 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

perspective

So for the first time, I was being really bold on Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital since ohconfucius brought the edit-war over this hospital to my attention... this has gotten out of hand... undue weight to all the allegations when there's already a main article with all the details. Isn't there at least some basic information on staff, year of founding, and such... anything before it jumps into these rumors? Seb az86556 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems ok to me... to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever even looked closely at the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, as I tend to stay away from the FLG articles (too much drama for me, and trying to keep them clean is too Sisyphian). The main issue, I think, is the question of whether the content at Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Sujiatun_case is a full (or even full-er) copy of what used to be at Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital. I think that stuff does at least belong somewhere (perhaps for a selfish reason—it turns out I wrote most of it! although I later forgot about having written it), but perhaps not at the hospital article....although, at the very least, the hospital needs a prominent {{main}} link, or even a hatnote, leading to the other article, since the hospital's main (and, indeed, only) claim to fame is the FLG accusations, and anyone searching for it on WP is probably going to be looking for that.

As for basic information on staff and founding...I don't think anyone has found that yet, other than what is mentioned in the FLG-related investigations. If no such information is found, we might even have to just turn this article into a redirect to the other page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I left a response to your question at User talk:Ohconfucius, detailing a little more about the article's editing history. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Did read both. Good. Just wanted to clarify this since you put so much work into it (and I sat here for a few moments contemplating before hitting "save"...).

Also -- I de-linked the word "concentration camp"... people throw that word around like it's nothing. Even some FLG-websites I skimmed say only 7 dead. That's tragic, but ridiculous. Anyone who screams "concentration camp" obviously has no idea about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bosnian rape camps, or even the second Boer war for that matter. Linking there in this case is inappropriate. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you oppose a redirect to Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China as per WP:NPOV/N? I would like to "be bold" and just redirect it now but wanted to consult you first. Colipon+(Talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please just leave it that way. Mayb one day someone can actually find enough to write an actual hospital-article on it. It should still be possible to write something about the building, not the not butchering. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A link that was not dead after all

Thank you for your teaching me something new on my talk page and for the revert, I see now that the article loads, which is odd. Perhaps the site was temporarily down. Sorry for the inconvenience. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Media articles, again

Some editors continue on insisting that these FLG-related organizations are somehow "independent". Would like your expertise on Sound of hope. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on EpochTimes

Hello, When you have time, could you please leave a feedback on Talk:The_Epoch_Times#First_sentence. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marc87

I have a suspicion that User:Marc87 is an automated program rather than a human editor. His edits seem to follow a formula, he has made no effort to make his user page presentable (most users have a little pride), comments on his talk page are simply reverted rather than responded to, and when he is editing he is editing large numbers of articles at a regular pace (no need to take a potty break?). This seems wrong. Do you know if there is a policy that applies or a place to open an investigation? Readin (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's an automated program, because he sometimes changes things up (for example, there was an article he made bad edits to a couple times, but when I hounded him about it enough he slinked away...if he were an automated program I think he would have kept it up). I think he's just a bad editor with no interest in communicating with people—similar to the now indef-blocked User:Ninthwhen. Anyway, as far as I know there's no way to check things like that, although you could ask someone who has checkuser (but I don't think they can do anything about it, AFAIK all they can do is check IP addresses), or a bot operator (since they might know more about how to recognize accounts that are bots). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. He just created a user page. Readin (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, that a user can be blocked without being a bot ;). This is pretty much the same thing that happened with Ninthwhen, and I was able to block him forever because he never responded to any discussions. If you see Marc87 make another bad revert, change to naming conventions, or BLP violation, feel free to let me know and I can give him a long block (who knows, maybe that will get him talking). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

check this

[[6]] <can't read Chinese, what's this about? Undo? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he removed the traditional character version of the name (新疆维吾尔自治区 and 新疆維吾爾自治區 are both the same thing, only the latter is traditional characters). I was about to revert...but I assume his unstated rationale was that this is PRC so traditional characters are irrelevant. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but if you want to revert and tell him to go to the talk page that would be fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

I don't really care either. Just making sure it didn't completely screw the meaning. Never know... coulda said f*ck china or whatever :P Seb az86556 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

underlining hanzi

How's this?

五个泥

(If you like it, I can make a template so it isn't so onerous to type.) kwami (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Organ Harvesting

I would like to bring to your attention this picture, readily being used as circumstantial "evidence" that Chinese gov't is harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners (this and a few other "evidence" charts have been added to the article, citing Kilgour-Matas). What is your view about a chart like this on a heavily contested article? Colipon+(Talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly OR, unless you're using it to cite someone else having used it to make these claims. (ie, saying "Kilgour-Matas used the following graph to say..." is technically true, though not necessarily good writing.... whereas saying "this graph proves..." is junk.) Anyone who's had an elementary school education knows that going from this chart to "they must be harvesting organs!" is a huge jump in logic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter)

An FYI (since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter) as re-userfy, I've tagged User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter) for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. My rationale is at User talk:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter). I hope you agree with my reasoning. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his talkpage needs to be deleted, as it's a record of discussions that have been had (and, more importantly, a record of my laundry list of reasons why a Sarey Savy article is never going to happen) and doesn't have any identifying personal information AFAIK. I'll have to look into his userpage more closely. As for his subpage, I have no problem with deleting it but I probably shouldn't be the one to do it; I would recommend MfDing it.

On a side note, I am just about to block the user indefinitely. He's created another junk article about an unreleased and NN single, and clearly is not interested in understanding how WP works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad; I thought you had tagged his main talkpage, not the talkpage of his subpage. Anyway, I would still say MfD is better, given that it's not 100% certain he is the article subject (although he probably is). I am certain the MfD would result in delete anyway, but at least we'd be following the correct procedures. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting those other pages. I have created an MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter). Will you please add an MfD tag to User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter); I can't edit the page because it is fully-protected. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to move-protect it, not fully-protect it; fixed now. I've also added the MfD tag. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)

^_^ Thanks. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Pericles of Athens, award Rjanag with this Barnstar of Diligence for extraordinary contributions made to Chinese classifier, which is a Good and soon-to-be Featured article. Well done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

So what are the chances of two people editing the same article at the same time like that then? I'll leave you to it - if you want to take anything from my version please do so, and I'll take a look at yours later on. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I was thinking the same thing! Sorry about the ec; I'll take a look at your version and see if there are any major differences in our organizations. Either way is probably fine, though; any structure at all is better than the incomprehensible mish-mash that was there before... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Chzz has given you half a biscuit! May Mr. Moult bring you fair winds, your lenor always be discounted, your gargoyles never bear any resemblence to a comedian from Faversham, and your windows be free of condensation.

Spread the goodness of HMHB by adding {{subst:HB}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Or don't.

Yes, I really am sad enough to download the pic, crop it, upload it, make a template, etc. Your work on restructuring my feeble article was sublime. Cheers, Chzz ► 07:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

classifier

Have you seen my comment on the talk page? GeometryGirl (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FG repository

I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

:(it's here: User:Ohconfucius/FG repository‎ Seb az86556 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

?

rv good faith -- this makes it somewhat suggest that these languages got CL from Chinese, whereas it's actually ambiguous. "close to" refers to both geographically and typologically

A lot of East Asian languages have, indeed, borrowed/influenced from Chinese language. I don't see why it should not read "borrowed" or "influenced by". "Close to"? The only languages that borrowed from Chinese ARE located in Asia, which IS CLOSE to PRC. Explain? I feel like you're making quite an unnecessary edit, when I was clearly asked to copyedit this article (see my talk page). ★Dasani★ 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if it seems like I was disregarding your edit, that was not my intention. My point was just that, since this paragraph is specifically about doubts over whether the classifier system was borrowed from Chinese or borrowed into Chinese, it would be best to use the most neutral language possible; while it is true that many languages have been influenced Chinese (just as it is true that Chinese has been influenced by other languages), that's not the main point here, and using languages like that can predispose the reader towards one view or another (i.e., "oh, well if these languages were shaped by Chinese, then of course it makes sense to assume they got their classifier systems from it!). The source I am quoting, if I remember correctly, just lists a bunch of languages (such as Thai, Burmese, and others) that have similar classifier systems, so I was rewording a bit. Of course, you are correct that there is a well-known linguistic concept of a sinosphere (languages that have used Chinese characters in the past, or still do, and have been influenced by Chinese throughout history), but the point here is just that a bunch of languages have similar systems and no one is quite sure who had it first and who borrowed it.

As for copyediting, personally I don't think much more copyediting is necessary (it has already been through GAN, PR, one FAC, several other copyedits, and the most recent one by GeometryGirl—it was her, not me, who left the message at your talkpage), but if you are interested in the article you are welcome to contribute. I am not really intending to start a fight over this sentence, I would much rather have a discussion about it. Anyway, I'm just saying, you don't need to stress out about rushing to copyedit since it's not an urgent need (there are probably other articles that need your attention more) but also you shouldn't feel unwelcome to edit; it's just up to you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation accepted; no offense taken. Well, these days I don't touch Wikipedia much anymore, I actually put up the "RETIRED" sign on my profile. I just wanted to see if there was anything that could really be done, but it seems like you've both already brought this article up through a long haul.

Yes, I was aware that it was GG who left me the notification, which is why I've clearly stated "was left a message" — not necessarily implying it was you who left the request.

Anyway, good luck with the article. ★Dasani★ 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiBirthday

Thanks! :) --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New version of "Infobox Korean name" template

Need your output at Template talk:Infobox Korean name#Sizing in fonts and cells. Don't you think that the font size is becoming ridiculous? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese and other issues

There is an on-going article name dispute for the Taiwanese language here. There is also an on-going discussion at Talk:Wenzhou Chinese. Your help would be more than appreciated as there seems to be deadlock. Colipon+(Talk) 23:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressive power of natural language

This article is up for deletion and I thought you migth be interested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Commenting out credits at T:TDYK

I was thinking about the page load issue a little bit, and I hit on something that could speed things up. Right now the credits are in an invisible div. This means that the Wikipedia servers, and your browser, render the credits, but make them invisible (try looking at the page source). If we comment out the credits, it does not act like a transcluded template, but some random text lying around. This would effectively cut the number of transcluded templates in half (we still have {{*mp}}s) and might make a dent in the speed issue some people are seeing. Shubinator (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the original plan for the template, but I could never get it working; the template would always treat  as commented-out parts of the template itself, rather than text to be inserted after the subst. I tried with includeonlys and stuff and never got it working, which is why I ultimately changed it to invisible divs. Another option would be to display the credits as nowiki text, which would show up in the regular page (not the edit window) but not load as transcluded templates...but that would be very cluttery. Anyway, feel free to try things out (copy the text of Template:NewDYKnomination into User:Rjanag/NewDYKnom dev or another sandbox) and see if you can get the commenting-out working. I don't have time to do any template work right now but I might be able to try in a week or two. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the nowiki might work too. I'll try fiddling around later today. Shubinator (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Change to template, sandbox test. The random includeonly's break up the comment-out syntax on the template itself, so it doesn't act as a comment. But when the template gets substituted, the includeonly's go away, and what's left is comment-out syntax. Same strategy as meta:Help:Substitution#Includeonly. Shubinator (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; I've changed it here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we wait and see ... Shubinator (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

12th Lord Belhaven and Stenton 2 August 2009

Point taken that I could have been a little more restrained in expressing my outrage at being accused of copyright infringement. Thank you for promptly restoring the article, as requested. ChapmanHB (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ChapmanHB

hi there! :)

Bluefish35 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Haha, wow. I feel so cool! :D Enjoy your cookie! This is so incredibly pointless. --=BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RoyDickson

What's the deal? Eery time Roy does something, you seem to feel you need to announce it to as many other users as possible. If you have a problem with Roy's edits, could you just say what it is in a straight forward manner instead of putting out bulletins every time he makes an edit? Please? --Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to say anything one way or another about the article; I was just pointing out this new page because people like you had expressed an interest in this topic before and had dealt with a similar list at a different location. Am I not allowed to leave neutrally-worded and innocuous notices now? Am I only allowed to leave messages pushing some viewpoint or another?

And, while we're on this, what is your deal? I left one message at a barely-watched page, and suddenly it's "announcing it to as many other users as possible"? Huh? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[7] [8] Ok, maybe your just advertising it to me. Anyway, you've said that he's "causing trouble" which I don't think is a fair characterization. Or at least I don't believe he is deliberately doing so. It looks to me like you have a problem with Roy's edits, but you want somebody else to call him on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One was a month ago, when he was a brand new editor and there was good reason to be pointing out problematic edits. The other was alerting you of a message he had left for you, and asking for comments. Can you dig up any more requests for comment that you'd like to complain about, or can I close this pointless discussion? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

South Korea orthographic projection

I don't see how I'm the one being accused of "edit warring" when I'm the ONLY one offering to discuss this issue in order to reach a consensus. I've started a discussion on the talk page, and provided reasons for my edits, yet no one has participated in the talk page, and no reasons have been provided for the undoing of my edits, including (as of this edit) by you.

I will continue to patiently wait until someone provides a reason to the contrary. Until then, I will continue to promote a maintenace of the original. Thank you, :) Sourside21 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you accused me of being an "edit warrior", and that I was not interested in discussion of this issue. Quite to the contrary, to this date, I have been the only one discussing this issue on the talk page. I will kindly link you to a discussion about this issue on said talk page. Please participate there. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection

Sourside21 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ninjas!

Hi Rjanag, I know you're busy, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion/assistance on something. The ninja article is currently a poorly constructed mishmash, and very prone to vandalism. If you take a quick look at the history, you'll see that most of the edits during the last few months have been vandalism from IP editors. This includes childish insertions, trolling, and what appears to be copyright violations. There is also a persistent trend to add poorly written, unsourced, and somewhat dubious information to an already controversial article. I was wondering if it is perhaps appropriate to apply semi-protection to this page.

I will inform you that I am currently working on a total rewrite of the article here, and plan to put it up probably sometime this week. I will also try for a DYK nomination. Please let me know what you think about article protection. Cheers ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

From my quick glance, I'm not sure semi-protection is necessary or appropriate. While there is some vandalism reverting (as there is at just about any prominent article), it's not as nonstop or frequent as it is at other articles that I've seen get semi-protection (take, for example, Perry Meridian High School); likewise, the IP edits don't appear to be 100% unconstructive, it looks like there have been a few legitimate edits from IPs as well, and those would be blocked if the page were to be semi-protected. A lot of the vandalism has come in spurts from single IP addresses (which can be handled with blocks, rather than protection). Furthermore, it appears that not all the stuff being reverted is vandalism. While bad writing and unsourced additions may be annoying, it's not vandalism, and pages usually aren't semi-protected over those things (an example is Spoonerism, which gets pretty much nothing but junk additions, but has not been semi-protected; another is Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette Syndrome).

It seems to me that your best bet would be to wait until after you've posted your new version, and then see what form the IP editing takes—if people don't feel a need to add junk to the new, bigger version, then there might no longer be a need to semi-protect. The main thing to worry about is making sure the new draft you're writing has the support of other editors there and nothing important is lost from the original, but it looks like you have already started a discussion to keep people involved in the rewriting, which is good.

As for DYK, that will probably not be possible. The draft would have to double in size before it meets the 5x requirement (it's currently about 25,000 characters, as compared to 10,000 in the actual article), and by then it would be longer than a typical article should be; furthermore, even if it technically meets the 5x expansion requirement, I would be hesitant to feature an article that has already had such large and prominent coverage on Wikipedia (it's mostly for featuring new topics, or things that were just expanded from stubs). You'd probably be better off taking the new article for a GA assessment and then to FAC (and if it makes FA, then it would be able to get an even more prominent spot on the main page anyway). If you disagree, though, you can ask for comment from DYK regulars at WT:DYK. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right. For some reason I had always thought the required amount of expansion for DYK was 2x.. too bad :(. I am worried about the ninja article because in the entire time it's been on Wikipedia, I have yet to see anyone take serious initiative on it, nor anybody who seems to have any background knowledge on Japanese military affairs involved. I am most concerned that if I stop watching the article, it will descend back into a mess, and I can't always be here. But like you said, I will wait and see what happens after I update it with the new version. Thank you for your time. Regards, ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, sorry to bug you again. There seems to be several IP editors [9], [10], [11] bent on reverting the ninja article back to one revision, where some uncited and exaggerated nonsense was added. One, who is clearly a troll, has reverted to that version 4 times in a row [12]. Could you take a quick look? Thanks, ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know Nomination

Hi. I've nominated McGee Airways, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Smallman12q (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you get credit?Smallman12q (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sing girls

Hi m8

Sorry no reply, had a few problems here with failed hard drives and blown up graphics cards and then holiday - just got back on sunday and made a few posts announcing my return - surprise surprise I giot exploited and just finished reinstalling windows again

should be back on more at the end of the week once all my progs are back on the PC

thx for the reminder, I had a quick look and loos good - will get back to you later once I have more time - at the moment just have installed vista, teamspeak, firefox and putting FSX on now so maybe two or three days before all is back to basics...

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang

Someone recently made some bold changes to the Xinjiang-article with regards to th meaning of the name, and an IP pointed it out as incorrect on the talkpage. I have no way of checking it. Here is the 3edits-diff. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Turpan & water system

The link from Turpan to Turpan water system is only present in article picture annotation, not in main text, hence I do believe a See also link would be appropriate. Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a [piped] link in the main text, which displays as karez. It's not a huge deal either way; I don't believe the seealso is necessary, but if you want to restore it it won't be the end of the world either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the birthday wish

We spend so much time on Wiki wrapped up in our intellects, analyzing, debating etc. It can be a bit cerebral at times. Good to warm the heart now and then and share our brother and sisterhood as world citizens. Thanks for birthday post. All the Best to You. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: ITN and Chinese error

Yes, apparently it was reported in The New York Times if the comments are to be believed. Here under 16 August. --can dle •wicke 23:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About Laukkai

The reason is political. Although Kokang is in Shan State, it is not ruled by Shan State. Many people do not know that Shan State is in Myanmar/Burma, and people know it well should also be aware of its uneasy relationship with the central government. So I was wondering that, if Laukkai is listed "only under" the category of Shan State, it will seem like something is being implied. Qrfqr (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kokang incident

I was going to add my support to the nomination but I saw you added it yourself. Even though it began a few weeks back it's getting a lot of attention now, so I think its worth it. Great work on the article though! :) It's coming along nicely. I'll try and find out more about the MNDAA and add over the next few days. Midway (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Guangzhou 2010

Since you have encountered him before, so I'm bringing him to your attention. After checking out, I figure out the user comes from Chinese Wikipedia with the same disruption on similar subjects. If you see the history of Annals of the Joseon Dynasty [13], inter Wiki from Chinese Wikipedia has been changed three times, and that was due to Guangzhou 2010 (talk · contribs)'s tendentious edit warring over there[14] and comes here to continue his edit warring.

The user insists on using the name for what Chinese call in China, not in English or in Korea. Would you warn him to use edit summary and refrain from pushing POV crossing over multiple Wikiprojects? Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now the user visited Korean Wikipedia with the same title move campaign.[15] I guess he would go to Japanese Wikipedia as well.--Caspian blue 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I would suggest talking to User:Dferg, who is a sysop or steward on meta; over there there is some way to block a user across all Wikipedias (see, for example, [16]) but I don't know exactly how to do it. You can e-mail him at es:Especial:MandarEmailUsuario/Dferg. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think his activities at this stage are not blockable yet, so a "warning" would be enough (I hope). If he would not cease the disruption after today, I might need to contact the meta sysop. His POV pushing is not only limited to the article of Annal of the Joseon Dynasty, but also to related articles given his activities on Chinese Wikipedia. I expect he would carry out the same M.O to here, so he should be watched by more eyes. That's all. (for an unknown reason, my computer has some errors whenever I access Meta). Anyway, I appreciate your help. Thanks. --Caspian blue 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a 3rr warning earlier; I also believe he is probably a sockpuppet of User:Rayesworried. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Omm, another sockpuppet? (I have enough of Ziggymaster's socks at Seoul and South Korea.... by the way).--Caspian blue 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. The editor did the same thing today on not only Korean Wikipedia but also Chinese Wikipedia, and I did not report him on the former, but he got blocked for repeated disruption for one week.[17] Well, if he continues the disruption, meta is a possible option.--Caspian blue 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current related

I agree that Uyghur people was an appropriate use of the template, but that was one of the very few recent examples that I could think of. Most of the time, the template is used inappropriately ("Hey, this topic is related to a current event, so I gotta add this template!"), and there are usually no more than 2 or 3 (or none at all, often enough) articles using it. I don't think that we need an extra template for those few cases. --Conti|✉ 16:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should always be used, although the two examples you cite look fine to me. The point of these templates is to warn our readers of rapid change, as you say, but articles related to current events rarely do change rapidly. Heck, current events themselves rarely change rapidly. Mostly I'm just worried about misuse of the template, because there's usually no one monitoring the use of these templates. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kokang Incident

Although I agree that it is dictator claims are not a reliable source, it is the only source available to us. I suggest putting (official figures) or (government estimate) below it. Dictatorships also usually claim to kill large numbers of enemies at a minimal cost to themselves, but in this case, the govewrnment admitted to heavy losses. This suggestds casualties may be higher, but it is the only source we have so far, and should stay labelled (government claim) until an independent estimate can be verified. Reenem (talk)

As it is an official figure from an involved party, it should be included. If it is tagged with "According to Junta Government", readers will understand this is not neccesarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs)

As the police were targeted and attacked, it makes them an involved party. However, if they did not operate except for that incident, than Khin Yi should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 August 2009

yepp :P

thanks for blocking me for 10 seconds :P... I started an SPI on this guy... was getting sick of his fights @ South Korea. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That block was to stop you from destroying Wikipedia. I hope you learned your lesson! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded / added to McGee Airways article

Your message regarding copyright of the 2 pics I added to McGee Airways article - those are my pictures, in my possession. My father took those pictures and I am in sole possession of his picture collection. I have the negatives - so the statement in the picture page is correct - these are my pictures. Plz advise. Old33 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:RoyDickson#New_images.Smallman12q (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kachin Independence Army

Ah thanks. That might be true. I think this part of the article threw me:

"The fighting began between soldiers from the Kokang minority group and government troops, but it broadened to involve at least two more groups, the Wa and the Kachin. All three groups oppose the central government."

as if to imply it involved others, but it is not mentioned again in the article, nor have I seen it mentioned anywhere else. Of the news items I have seen, there seems to be tension, though it's still unclear as to how many groups were involved. Midway (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

psycho donuts

Hello,

I am not in a war with you. I am new to wikipedia, so I have made some errors in setting up links, etc.

However, it is not possible for a "store" to "describe itself." Your writing warrants minor editing in this instance, and I have done nothing wrong.

You, on the other hand, have not edited, but deleted every entry I have made, and deleted links to relevant material. --Summertoad (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your examples on Wikipedia: You are right. It is a common error, and easily corrected.--Summertoad (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess anybody's writing style can be considered prescriptive, yours or mine included, when someone insists on it never being edited. As I am sure you know, neither the internet nor wikipedia is a reliable source of quality writing.

I did not write that you had not edited the article. What I pointed out was that you were not editing my entries, but simply deleting them. You did, however, leave the reference to Pete Earley. However, your use of the quotation changed the meaning somewhat, especially when you changed the chronology, which is an important part of the psycho-donuts story.

I don't mean to be rude, but I won't be replying to anymore talk. I simply don't have time for it. --Summertoad (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

kinda like smelly feet

There's something weird about User:Clockoon and his stuff on South Korea... He claims to be active on the Korean wiki but has no user page, no talkpage, no history there as far as I can tell..."없습니다" -- that's my limited knowledge of Korean. More socks? Seb az86556 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a typo, you forgot the 'c': [18] . :)

That being said, I was a bit concerned when he first edited the SK page, thought he might be a sock of User:Rayesworied. But he has had an account on en-wiki for a pretty long time (although, granted, it was inactive for a very long time), and he seems to have a slightly better grasp of things than Rayesworied... also, they seem to both be active on ko-wiki (ie, Clockoon probably wasn't just a 'sleeper' account that someone abandoned until getting blocked), although I don't know Korean so I can't tell if there's any similarity in their editing. All things considered, I think they're probably not the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate DYK

The Play of the Weather has been featured on DYK before. The nom wasn't deleted from T:TDYK, so it's up again now. Could you take it down or replace it? Shubinator (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fast heads-up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The cake was quite tasty, and it was nice of you to notice my "birthday." :-) Textorus (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Re: this edit I think you meant to say "signature" not "username". I don't want to correct you on that page because the user is already confused enough - but would you take a look. Thanks. 7 02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen van Rensselaer III

You have moved this article to a lower case "van." What do you mean with "proper capitalization"? Where did you get the info that he used a lower case van, and not a capitalized "Van," like all sources state? Please add sources to the talk page. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in editing this article, other than that single edit, and I don't really know anything about it; you might be able to get more information from User:UpstateNYer, who has worked the most on this article. Van (Dutch)#Conventions also has some information on capitalization conventions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This amn was neither Dutch nor Belgian, he was American. American usage is "Van", all the sources say "Van" referring to this person. I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from moving articles you admit you don't know anything about. Now I need some admin to move it back, maybe UpstateNYer can do that. 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it very much if you would tone your messages down. Wikipedia has a policy called Be bold in editing, and you had two months after this move to leave me a message saying "I think the move was incorrect". Had you done so, I would have (as I did now) directed you to somewhere where you can get more information, and not stood in the way of letting you move the article about—I really don't care where it's located, I was just trying to do some WikiGnoming. Perhaps my change was wrong, everyone makes wrong changes from time to time; there is no need for anyone to be a dick about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out that American usage is highly variable, with VanSomething, Van Something and van Something all to be found (to say nothing of the occasional vanSomething). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to revert an old edit to [[[South Korea]] by User:Nikkul dated 25 august, where he claimed to have removed POV ( about innovation) but was well-sourcved. Hometech (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake

My mistake. Thanks, for improving my mistake [19]-[20] :) LUCPOL (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobak's Blocking Templates

Look bro, thanks for your help with that fiasco. I just wish I would have known the issue was brought up in ANI. I commented on the accusations there and on his page. Again, thanks, his templates are normal now. Have a great day!! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: MissingNo.

I responded to your comments at the FAC. As it stands there isn't much I can do with expanding those statements as they're a direct summary of what's being said on those three pages.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But the exact line being paraphrase is:

"However, this is an unusal case and, for the most part, there is no equivalent attempt to ameliorate the situation through explanatory or compensatory textual production."

That sums up what the text is given without trying to embelish: he stated it as an unusal case and the circumstances were unique. Directly after that he goes on a tangent about glitch hunting and the importance of it for players to poke holes in video games to see what they find, which is a different angle than the article is discussing. I don't understand why you feel the need to come across as antagonistic over it, but no use of peacock words or other hubbub is being done here or intended in any way. Saying "remove something or I'll keep opposing" is a bit offkilter for a FAC of all things don't you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Left a response. Sorry if you felt I was dismissing your comments, I was just satisfied with neutral as there wasn't a whole lot I could do about them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Take another look, I think I've found a way to compromise on the sentence.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

protection of page lower silesia

Hi how are you? I hope you are fine. I am writing to you because of the protection of the page Lower Silesia. There is a region in Germany that belongs to Lower Silesia, and this can be proven by the fact that on the official website of that region, there is the coat of arms of Lower Silesia shown. www.kreis-goerlitz.de Thats why i wanted to include three german cities of that region which lie in germany, into a city list of that page. But someone else keeps reverting my changes all the time, because those cities only belonged to Lower Silesia from 1815 on. But that is no reason not to include those cities because the page Lower Silesia is not about Lower Silesia prior to 1815. Now this page is protected and i can't change it anymore. There is mostly just one person who always reverts my changes, and i think that his opinion can't be seen as neutral. I also don't understand why i am in an edit war, because i just change obviously wrong things. But now the page is protected in the version without those cities and i can't add them anymore. I've been trying to discuss the topic on the discussion page, and everyone who has a look on it, can see that i explained the facts in detail, and that i was very engaged in the discussion. But all i get are very short unlogical answers, and a revert of my changes. A neutral person is needed to solve the problem. Or, why is the official usage of an coat of arms of a region not proof enough that this region belongs to the region of which it uses the coat of arms? it is always deleted with the annotation: del original research i thought official pages are a proof. The region belonged to lower silesia from 1815 on, and that is no reason to exclude it, just because other regions were longer part of lower silesia. Take care, Michał Jadran91 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not really interested in getting involved in the content dispute. Like I said already, edit warring is never an appropriate way to solve a problem; even if you are sure your edits are correct, you need to get consensus for them if there is a dispute. Thus, once someone has disagreed with your edits, you need to stay at the talk page only, and not keep on reverting the article.

I already left you a message with a list of ways you can seek neutral people to solve the problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ok thank you but could you not just one time open the protection of the page very short so that i can revert the last changes, and then protect it again? because now it is wrong and it stays wrong until the protection is overJadran91 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, unprotecting the page to let you revert again would completely defeat the purpose of having ever protected it. (For more information on this, you can read meta:The Wrong Version, but please keep in mind that that page is written as a joke.) Did you ever read my message above? Again, when there is disagreement, you should not be reverting. Wait to get consensus before making any changes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ok sorry thank you take care Jadran91 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are just terrible

You are terrible!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

67.180.161.183 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding! You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. 67.180.161.183 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:PasswordUsername

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is going nowhere. You guys both know where to go to continue this debate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure a warning is sufficient, the guy is a repeat offender. Note he has clearly made his 3rd and 4th reverts after being asked not to delete whole sections of text. It is not the first time. --Martintg (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's as bad as he seems to be, he'll ignore the warning and revert soon anyway. And then he'll be blocked anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered this ArbCom case and I see that you were very close to being put on a 1RR restriction for these articles; therefore you, just like PasswordUsername, are dangerously close to getting blocked for edit warring. So the warning I gave PasswordUsername will have to apply to you and Andora as well. Please deal with things at the talkpage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, please take a look at the edits going on. User:Andora1 inserts his own WP:OR claim that all of the critics made false claims about the film in a section called "False Accusations". Meanwhile, no proof (WP:RS) of this is offered. I believe this is abuse of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the claim that critics are lying about the movie would be a violation of WP:BLP. Any controversial statements about living people must be referenced. I noted this concern in my edit summary: [21]. It seems that reverting is the only legitimate thing to do per Wikipedia protocol – else, we would imply that these living people (scholars, historians, and politicians from different countries, all mentioned by name) are lying about the movie, based off the opinion of one Wikipedian (and, for that matter, another one who often comes in to edit war against whatever I insert).

It is specifically registered that reverting in such a case is not a violation of 3rr. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the content issues, I care about following process. This is a subject that has been under arbitration before and there has been significant opposition to your edits, PasswordUsername; plus, I looked at the content myself and it is not an egregious BLP violation. There may be problems with it or content issues to be fixed, but these must be dealt with by consensus, not by making massive edits like this and changing 5 different things at once. That is the Wikipedia process. Stop reverting and start making constructive proposals at the talk page for ways to clean up the article, or asking for third opinions or dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please answer me: if you are a movie critic and I write on Wikipedia that you lied about (or made false claims regarding) the content of the movie without any shred of proof, would I be potentially libeling you? Yes or no? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, I am not part of your content dispute and I do not wish to be part of it. If you want a third opinion, follow one of the many avenues for getting them. Ask other people to comment on the article's talk page. That is the way to deal with these issues. If you are the only person who believes the article's content is libel and everyone else disagrees, then you have no right to be edit warring over it. On the other hand, if the article is so bad, then everyone you ask for a third opinion will come in and agree with you. I'm just a janitor; don't waste my time with this, go to WP:3O or WP:DR or a relevant WikiProject. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not part of the dispute, but you are an administrator. Surely, then, you are familiar with WP:LIBEL. I would like you to answer whether you believe that putting up information that five living people are lying about the movie fits the criteria of libelling living people or not. If you are unable to answer, please let me know your rationale for why you think it is a difficult case. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the text in the article backs up these claims with facts about the movie, which I presume can be verified by watching it. Likewise, the article doesn't say "these people are liars", it just disagrees with them or attempts to refute them; disagreement happens all the time in academic discussions. Like I said above, this may be poor writing and it probably is OR and probably is POV, but it is not libel and it does not give you the right to edit war. Now, I see no more reason for you to keep on bothering me here; if you want to be productive, go seek outside opinions through one of the channels I suggested above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

However. Per WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view, (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research." And the very subsequent lines say: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If no claims about living people were made, it would be appropriate to follow through the dispute resolution process, but here 'uncited' - and contentious - claims are being presented. The proper venue for dealing with this is not dispute resolution, but exactly this fundamental policy of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thing, then, this is not biographical material, but is discussion of a publication. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP is not limited to biographies either - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, citing someone's paper is not biographical material. You obviously don't understand what you're reading.

We're just going around in circles now. Unless you have something new to say, I won't be responding anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the user who inserted material that all of these claims were false inserted no citation of anyone's paper. "Biographical material" is that which makes claims about people. Or not? (And per WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.") PasswordUsername (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername was reported to AN3 just two weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29. He returned on September 1st after a short wiki-break since August 21st and immediately he engages in edit warring on his return. How many chances and warnings is he going to get before something is done to curb his disruptive behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you interested in improving the encyclopedia, or are you just out to get revenge? Listen, it doesn't matter what happens to PasswordUsername. Don't worry about other editors, worry about content and the encyclopedia; you should not care what PU is doing as long as the encyclopedia is ok. If PasswordUsername starts disrupting again, I'll block him. If he doesn't start, there is no need to block him and no need for you to be worrying about him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  - It is difficult to improve the encyclopedia when editors breach 3RR rather than engage in substantive discussion on the issues. --Martintg (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- That one was a false report. I've commented on why I reverted (we cannot post potentially libelous material about living people) right above you. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  - It wasn't a false report, at that time PasswordUsername also breached 3rr, but subsequently reverted his 4th revert after being reported. Looking at his edit comments in the current case, the first reason given for his revert was WP:MOS, then WP:OR and WP:RS for his second and third reverts, only now is he claiming WP:BLP, it wasn't apparent at the time. --Martintg (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    - That's what happens with multiple problems in the material added. BLP is part of the batch. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      - I don't care whether it was a false report or anything. It was never acted on, and it is not relevant to this. Please stay focused on the issues, please. If you guys keep pushing an irrelevant dispute here and ignoring the actual article that we are trying to deal with, I will have to start ignoring both of your messages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

China Daily and trials

I realised that when I added the information, however, I've just looked and it is mentioned by Xinhua. What do you think? Midway (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

True, though if I remember correctly, CD reported these figures before Xinhua last time - as Xinhua is the main government news agency rather than a newspaper, I wouldn't expect it to be 'wrong' about it, as such. I have seen the figures repeated here on TIME magazine though that doesn't amount to independent verification. But while I did attribute the figures to CD - if you feel more comfortable with removing the information for now at least, I don't mind. Midway (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername - here we go again

[22]. This time he didn't even take a short break between his bouts of edit-warring, though now he is self-reverting in order to stay just within the 3RR restriction (fence hugging). This isn't about revenge or anything, it's just that this is a very disruptive edit warrior, on multiple articles, in disputes with multiple users which makes normal editing difficult. I think 3 cases of edit warring within 2 weeks merits more than just a warning, since these appear to be ineffective.radek (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! right on the heels of Rjanag's warning that he will block PasswordUsername if he continues to edit war, now he is edit warring on Monument of Lihula:

1st revert: 14:47, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "lol, Estonia wasn't independent.")
2nd revert: 18:15, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undo blind revert by Martintg. Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, remember?")
3rd revert: 18:30, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters. See material on dedication and "controversy."")
4th revert: 18:35, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Sources don't describe this as "rumours." Obviously some feel that commemoraitng collaborationists is dangerous, so please no POV pushing.")

The guy is clearly out of control, he even mentions my name in the second revert even though I haven't edited that article since November 2007. Something needs to be done, I heeded your warning but PU seems to be blowing raspberries at you. Will you now block him as you said you would here? --Martintg (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that my third revert was a compromise attempt, my "4th revert" was unconnected to the previous three and that I self-reverted immediately? Frivolous claims don't look so good. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A revert doesn't have to involve the same material. You seem to be out of control. You were reported two weeks ago for edit warring multiple articles, but it went unactioned. The after returning from a week long wiki-break you immediately begin edit warring again. Rjanag warned us both, I heeded my warning but now you are edit warring again! Rjanag needs to impose a block to let you cool down and re-evaluate your disruptive approach to prevent further damaging Wikipedia. --Martintg (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I pruned a few different aspects of the article, which you claimed as your own defense when I reported you for edit warring a week or two ago (that went unactioned as well; although William M. Connolley expressed the opinion that you should have gotten a good blocking, I didn't pursue it as the behavior temporarily ceased). I self-reverted myself when I realized I'd accidentally passed the 3rr limit anyway, two minutes later - and way before what you're claiming now.

Your bad attitude speaks volumes here. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Accidentally" not in as in "I accidentally edit warred again" but as in "I was edit warring again and accidentally made it too obvious this time", right? 3RR is not a "right".radek (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, please take your personal beef elsewhere. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again? Did or did not Rjanag just previously warn you not to edit war again? --Martintg (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a good day. (What time is it in Australia?) PasswordUsername (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm making no blocks for this. Read through my explanation before getting your panties in a bunch, please.

This "report" was filed incorrectly: there are not four reverts here, there are maybe two. The first one is not a "revert", as he wasn't undoing any recent edit I can see; if anything, it was a BOLD change. The second one is an honest-to-goodness revert, ok. In the third one, he didn't restore his own material; it seems to be an attempt at consensus. Maybe a half-hearted attempt, and maybe one that he should have discussed before making, but an attempt nonetheless. The fourth one, like the first, is not a revert of something that came before, it's a bold change. So this is one revert, not four; furthermore, now that I look back on the warnings I gave, I was not clear as to whether I was saying I would block you guys for any new reverts, or only for new reverts at The Soviet Story, so I can't necessarily say that I have the right to block you guys anywhere you go.

Now I have a few messages for each of you. First, PasswordUsername: like Radeksz says, 3RR is not a "right", and stopping just short of 3 reverts over and over again is considered gaming the system; you can be considered edit warring even if you make just one or two reverts, and stopping at 2 over and over again (at different articles, on different days) will make people think you're gaming the system. Particularly, undoing yourself just to avoid being blocked is very poor behavior—that alone could get you blocked, depending on who's watching. You shouldn't have made the first revert I mentioned above; at that point you would have been better off starting a discussion. When in doubt, always start a discussion. To think of it in a more pragmatic way...when you made that revert, I'm sure you knew it wasn't going to stay. You saw you were in the middle of a dispute, did you really think they would all just back off after you reverted? If you know that your revert is not going to last five seconds, don't do it—start a discussion instead, then maybe you'll actually get somewhere.

Next. Martintg: You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by labelling your opponents as "out of control" after one revert, or by following me around trying to guilt-trip me into blocking people. Emotions are high enough as it is, what good are you going to do insulting people on purpose? As for this message of mine, which you cite as if it obligates me to block people at your bidding... like I said above, it doesn't. Again, PU's editing at that article probably wasn't perfect, but it's far less bad than you guys are making it out to be, and perhaps if you all didn't try to get at each other's throat over and over again then you guys would be able to get some real editing done instead of spending all your time fighting over 3RR.

Anyway, that's the gist of things. If I had caught PasswordUsername in the act (ie, in the middle of his one revert) today, then I might have blocked him. But that seems to have been several hours before; and the conduct of the lynchmob here only makes me even less motivated to help any of you. You all should stop relying so much on blocks to get your editing done, and try to learn how to discuss things. There are valid points behind both party's edits, and if you knuckleheads would actually talk about things then you could reach a consensus and fix up POV issues and make Wikipedia not have such crappy articles. If no one can be adult enough to discuss these things and have an open mind to other peoples' edits, though, that is never going to happen.

So, to sum up, neither of you is "right" and neither of you is going to get praised for what you've done in this conflict. PasswordUsername, you need make a habit of starting discussions the moment someone reverts you; I would suggest following the 1RR. Martintg, you need to be less hasty to turn things into 3RR reports. If neither of you can have a productive conversation with one another, then you both know ways to invite third-party editors in to evaluate issues.

If any of you disagree with this and still want to pursue a fight, you are welcome to do so—at the appropriate forum. My talkpage is not your personal battleground. In other words, Martinsg, if you feel PasswordUsername should be blocked and you're not satisfied with my message here, you are welcome to file a report at WP:AN3; you can link to the warning I gave before and whoever's at AN3 can decide if it's relevant. But please don't try to blame me for not blocking someone when I wasn't at my computer; you had diffs of warnings and diffs of reverts available, so you didn't have to come to me, and if you really needed him blocked right away then there were 1,600 other administrators you could have talked to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been long since I haven't edited this article, but I see out of the blue an edit war today on something I fought was happily at peace...

Firstly Rjanag, you can't say "you didn't have to come to me (...) there were 1,600 other administrators you could have talked to". You picked up this dirt, you have to clean it; don't put things on hold, or ask another "janitor" to be contacted, you are not a 1-800 teller. With the mop, expect to smell a lot of s%*t. :) I am really honestly sorry, I do understand how ingrate is this.

Secondly, IMHO, the first edit is not technically a revert; Rjanag is right. The second and third are. The forth edit shows confrontations at the same article, but is self-reverted by the fifth edit. So if we pretend, 4th and 5th didn't exist, there are 2 reverts. But, in regard to 4th and 5th, I agree with Rjanag that undoing oneself to avoid being blamed for policy braking is an attempt to game the system. IMHO it is Rjanag's sovereign call. He decided to warn PasswordUsername but take no further action if such behavior is not repeated; and I personally believe that was a smart thing to do. All in all, imho, Rjanag technical statements were correct, except that the 3rd edit should be also counted as revert. Allow me please to explain why:

The 3rd edit was to remove "who fought for Estonia" from "Monument of Lihula is a monument commemorating the Estonians who fought for Estonia in World War II", rendering "Monument of Lihula is a monument commemorating the Estonians in World War II". For everyone who read the article (which is expected from all editors), it is clear that this edit changes the sense 180 degrees. This was a clear sign of confrontation. 3rd edit just like the 2nd tried to change the same sentence to render its sense as opposite. It came only 15 minutes after the 2nd, and 4 minutes after the 2nd was reverted. Content-wise, one can just as well call 2nd a compromise for the 3rd: none of them is more moderate. What however seals my personal conclusion that the 3rd was a revert are the edit summaries:

2nd edit: "Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, remember?" (a play on the sense of occupation)
3rd edit: "Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters. See material on dedication and "controversy."" (ad hominem)

These are typical "I challenge you".

I can't but notice after this also the comment to the forth edit: "Obviously some feel that commemoraitng collaborationists is dangerous" and that the main point of the 4th edit was not in the text but in the title of the section (adding "concerns of anti-Semitism"). Read "I challenge you." again.

So, from my understanding, there were 3 reverts with the 3rd immediately self-undone.

Thirdly, the people who reverted PasswordUsername did well to make only "dry" edit summaries. But you should have reported the case also in a "dry" manner, without trying to "get to" PasswordUsername. IMHO, you undermined your case by crying fault too laud, making the impression that you are after an editor and not after quality of WP content. Anyway, it was Rjanag's call. He will have to clean this up in the days to come if it re-emerges, hence he is sovereign to take decisions according to his best judgement. Dc76\^talk 23:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is really beating a dead horse, but I'm just curious as to understanding your post. 1. How is "Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union" a "play on the sense of 'occupation'"? 2. How was edit summary "Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters..." (ie, my question as to whether my attempt at compromise according to article content was reasonable enough) an ad hominem (ie, a personal attack on somebody)? PasswordUsername (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Story

I've responded to yours on mine, hope it helps. Please let me know if you'd like future responses here instead. Thanks! VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Need a neutral, third-party opinion over at Talk:Hong Kong, if you have time. Thanks :) Colipon+(Talk) 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, are you still offering your neutral, third-party opinion over at Talk:Hong Kong ? Perhaps you may want to take a look at Article 2 of the Hong Kong Basic Law before preceding. Da Vynci (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pheung Kya-shin

On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pheung Kya-shin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zheng Sheng College

Could I ask you to please keep an eye on the above article? About once (sometimes twice) a day, an IP editor comes and posts a bunch of biased stuff which either does not correspond to the source, or is not supported by a reliable source. Occasionally, it is a WP:Coatrack about the CV of Mr Shek. I have reverted most of the edits, leaving edit summaries accordingly. It is becoming troublesome because there is a political battle going on in Hong Kong over this college, and I feel that what the IP editor is doing amounts to POV-pushing. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Titles of administrative divisions in Korea

Hi, your input would be appreciated at WT:KOREA#What would be proper titles for eup, myeon, dong?. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. Chevy Impala 2009 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin Attention

Please help move Suzhou, Jiangsu back to Suzhou. Someone moved earlier without discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can do that, but is it necessary? It looks like it has been at the current title for at least a couple weeks, and there's a hatnote explaining the redirect. While this is obviously the biggest and most 'primary' Suzhou, there are still lots of others, so I can see some value in having the current title even if it is the primary topic. Having the big "Jiangsu" in the page title will help be an extra safeguard against readers looking for some other Suzhou and reading this article instead; the hatnote should be enough to guide them, but sometimes readers are stupid or inattentive, so this title would be an extra notification. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except that almost all pages which link to Suzhou link to the city in Jiangsu, and there are almost no incoming links for "Suzhou, Jiangsu". :) Colipon+(Talk) 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But then again, because of the redirect, any incoming link for Suzhou is also an incoming link to Suzhou, Jiangsu. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have several reasons for this move:

All other languages WP seem to have "Suzhou" as the de facto standard.
Search on google reveals that "Suzhou" almost yields no results for all other uses.
The move had no discussion, no consensus, etc. so this discussion shouldn't even be happening.
Comparative case in "Vancouver, BC" and "Vancouver, Washington".

I hope that is sufficient. Colipon+(Talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Those look like good reasons. I'll go ahead and do the move; i'm not sure how many double redirects there will be to clean up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! :) Colipon+(Talk) 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, talk page still needs to be moved. Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, weird...I must have accidentally unclicked "move associated talk page". Should be fixed now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Images & accessibility question

No, I don't know anything about a guideline for image placement in these situations. The placement of the image doesn't matter to me in this case. Graham87 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FA

Congrats on your new FA! Happy editing, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now just to get it on the main page...I'll just sit around at WP:TFA/R and 守株待兔 ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: new sig

yepp... I have started revamping Wikiibíídiiya (Navajo) a bit and decided to transfer my signature:

Cho-^{[thematic prefix]} (use/useful) -y-^[obj] (it) -oo-^{[3rd person iterative]} -ł-^[ligature] -ʼįįh- (act/make/do) -í^{(nominalizer)}

= "Makes use of it" (Cf. "Dances with Wolves" :P) > "user" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

I just saw that this made FA - congratulations! Very well-deserved. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done, very impressive. John Jomeara421 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Plz Authorize new page

Plz authorize USER:ROYDICKSON/SANDBOX so I can use it for testing. Old33 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About new accounts

Hi, Im wondering when my account can be opened for semi-protect pages? Can you direct me to an admin that you know that I can ask? Thanks. Harut8 (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I noticed you are an admin. So when can i edit with semi-protect pages? Is it after 4 days? Harut8 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have an issue with another admin Dbachmann. You see, he has "permanent" locked certain pages that the reason is just to put the template which is linked with those pages. The pages are Nairi, Hayasa, and Urartu (as you see Armens has the template which is next to those, and they all had the template for atleast 2-3 years prior to keep removing them and perm locking). These links are in Template:History of Armenia, and this is not a reason to perm lock these pages which he has done for those reasons. He will probably tell you there is other edits done too for perm lock, but nothing much, we are only trying to add back the template linked to the pages. Can you help out now as an admin on this issue? Thank you I appreciate it. Harut8 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, one of my friends has tried that already in Talk pages, but this admin seems to be different. He seems to think that everything is nationalism. My friend even gave examples of Chinese history, and that Armenian history has evidence and facts that its almost as old as Chinese history as a modern people. This is very important, it seems to be a political issue, because there should be no reason to remove and "perm lock" pages just cause of simple template adding which was always there and linked with those pages on the template? Harut8 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible you can just add back those templates as they are linked with those pages I listed? I would really appriecate it thank you. Harut8 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But I already told you my friends tried talking to him. He will not agree, his reasons are not good though, to "perm lock" just to add back the appropriate template links back? Harut8 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the Talk:Nairi message in here. Now what should I do If he doesnt agree? He doesnt seem to have a good reason. He even would try to make me a sockpocket. But Im not a sockpocket of any older user. Im just trying to add back the template. A friends, friend,s, friend told me about this. Harut8 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you open for me semi-protect so I can add back the templates? Harut8 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your note. This another sock (or self-described meatpuppet) of banned user Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) -- suggest blocking on sight. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Smallman12q (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comedy-drama

Fair enough. I haven't seen this so I was just trying to expand the article, but since you submitted it for GA, then drama is at least half right. ;) I'm sure it's acceptable. Feel free to revert. Good job on working on the article too! I hope our nominations for the Chinese films we're submitting pass! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I might do that. I'll see if I can look it over on the weekend. It's looking good so far though! Keep it up! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Moptop

I'm pretty sure I read that. Let's scout a bit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

http://feraljundi.com/2009/07/20/funny-stuff-hair-of-death/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/no-country-for-old-men-film gives Nathan, Ian (January 2008). "The Complete Coens". Empire. p. 173. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a problem. The Guardian has the first part, but I'm not finding where the balance of the quote ("acts by itself" or whatever) originates. Is it possible that it came from Wikipedia and bounced around the net thereby? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done. I'm looking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, our posts were passing each other in cyberspaces. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Guardian says the LA Times was the source of the quote. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

VMAsNYC dispute

I noticed your even-handedness with the dispute regarding J Milburn and VMAsNYC so I thought you should be aware of this discussion that mentions it. I will be producing a thorough WP:AN/I report when I have some time and I would appreciate any insight you could provide. Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion... on linguistics!

Please lend your opinion over at Talk:Yue Chinese#Yue?. User:kwami recently made sweeping changes to Cantonese-related articles and moved "Cantonese" to "Yue Chinese". Colipon+(Talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get an admin to move the page back to "Cantonese" and then if we want to discuss we can do so there. Unilaterally moving a page without gathering consensus is not proper procedure; we cannot simply assume that because it's suddenly moved by an admin, this is where the page ought to be. Colipon+(Talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur people

my two reverts are up and the IP is socking Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I don't want to protect an article if I don't have to, but I can just start blocking IPs. Even if this guy edits from other IPs it'll still be obvious who it is, and he's had his chance to discuss, so I won't feel bad blocking next time he makes this edit again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys

Hi, I wanted to make this comment so that the admin who is going to take a look at the unblock request will see that Biophys has been edit warring elsewhere as well: [23]. But Biophys removed my comment from his talk page. Should I revert him or post it elsewhere? Offliner (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the removal was inapproriate, so I have restored the notice: [24]. Offliner (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate of you to be edit warring on Biophys talk page. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, you should not be reverting him.

@Rjanag, how come you didn't give Biophys a warning like you did for PasswordUsername, despite the fact that PasswordUsername had actually breached 3RR two weeks after an earlier report on AN3 and subsequent edit warring as reported on this page? --Martintg (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How come you're following me around trying to continue a silly fight that I advised you against months ago? The two cases are not directly comparable and your insistence on trying to dig up more and more reasons to attack your little enemy really reflects poorly on you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Following you around? I came here via Biophys's talk page after seeing his block and found Offliner's message. My question was a reasonable question, your response appears to be rather odd. Where did this notion of "trying to dig up more and more reasons to attack your little enemy" come from? I don't believe we have interacted before PU's report, and we have not interacted since until today, so what justification do you have in assuming bad faith in my motives? Again I ask: why didn't you didn't give Biophys a warning, the only diff presented in his AN3 report was for something from June. --Martintg (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Leehom Wang's Nationality

Hi! Wang was born and raised in the US. There is no question that he is American. Given Taiwan's nationality rules, he is probably also a citizen of Taiwan ROC through his parents. Calling him American-born Taiwanese implies that he was only born in the US, perhaps while his parents were living here briefly or something. Look to Yo-Yo Ma's page. He is a French-born American. He was born in France, but is not a French citizen. Wang is an American and a Taiwanese (most probably). Therefore Taiwanese-American captures both of his dual nationality.

Penser (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

You can suggest this at Talk:Leehom Wang; there are many editors who watch this page and are concerned with these nationality issues, so it needs to be discussed before changes are made. You may also want to seek opinions from User:Readin and User:Arsonal, who have been more involved in this article than I have. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this has been discussed for a while, going back to 2006, in fact. The consensus is pretty much that he is an American (this is documented and not really something that can be disputed). The real point of contention in the past was whether his ethnicity should be described as Taiwanese or Chinese. That's one of those contentious issues that probably should not appear in the lead sentence unless someone has a source where Wang describes a preference in describing his ethnicity. Cheers!Penser (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

I'm in the opinion that we should not speculate. There is no question that he is an American, but we can only speculate whether or not Leehom (and/or his parents) possesses ROC citizenship. In my opinion, his parents can be considered Taiwanese Americans but not for Leehom. I prefer leaving the lead saying he is an American who gained fame in Taiwan because this is the definite fact, and he never actually grew up on the island. Arsonal (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced speculation. Penser (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

Actually, I believe Arsonal was saying that your proposal was speculation—anything suggesting Wang has Taiwanese citizenship is. But note that in the article, "Taiwanese" links to Taiwanese people: it doesn't say anything about citizenship, it's about ethnicity, culture, etc. Thus, there is no speculation in "American-born Taiwanese". If it makes a difference, this could also be worded "American of Taiwanese descent", which says the same thing.

I see you have reverted the article again without waiting to get any sort of consensus anywhere; please don't keep doing that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have sources using the "American-born" wording, which helps set a precedent. [25] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"American of Taiwanese descent" is definitely an improvement, although I generally prefer "ancestry" rather than "descent" because "descent" sounds like you're going downhill.

It is common amoung immigrants from Taiwan to refer to their children as "American-born Taiwanese" or "American-born Chinese" depending on their political persuasion, but the term is considered offensive by many of those children and by many Americans in general. "Taiwanese American" is often used with far fewer people considering it offensive. I don't know of anyone who would be offended by "American of Taiwanese ancestry". I'll post this on the discussion page too. However, from what I'm reading on the talk page and in the article, is ancestors are really from China, only making brief stop in Taiwan. If that is correct, then "American of Chinese ancestry" would be ok. Whether that or some other phrase should be found would depend I think on how closely his parents identified with Taiwan. Readin (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point; maybe the best way would be something along the lines of "American singer of Chinese descent, who is active in Taiwan" or something like that. I think it's important to specify his "base" (where he lives, works, etc.), as well as his original nationality and ancestry. Because, let's face it, even though he's technically American, everyone thinks of him as Taiwanese first and foremost—that's where his identity and (in WP terms) his notability are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't see this discussion.

I don't have a problem with the current wording "American of Chinese ancestry" as it is undoubtedly true (almost all Taiwanese have Chinese ancestry). I would not be surprised, however, if some see it as a slight to Taiwan. We can deal with that delicate subject when it comes up. Penser (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)penser

Kathleen Ahrens

Hi there, just to let you know I sent an email to Kathleen Ahrens:

Along with other contributors, I have been working on the Wikipedia article Chinese classifier. The article is relatively developed, and cites one of your papers. May I ask you to review the page? Any comments you may have will be gratefully received.

And she replied:

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm in the middles of something else right now, but I will turn my attention to classifiers for some other projects before the end of the year and I will go over your article then. Does that sound alright?

And I replied back saying that was great. I might be busy after university starts so I'll refer to you all her comments. Is that OK?

GeometryGirl (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting her. Judging by some of your posts on the FAC page, I gather you know her or have worked with her in real life, is that the case? (I'm just curious.) Also, if she wants to be able to e-mail me directly you are welcome to give her my e-mail address, <snip>. (To be honest, I myself wouldn't mind being in touch with her eventually, since I am preparing to do a suppliance experiment having to do with classifiers, hopefully followed by an EEG experiment, and her work is quite relevant to what I'm planning on doing.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't know her personally... I'm a student mathematician, not a linguist! (Actually, I emailed her only because she was the first academic cited in the references.) It's thanks to the internet that academia interacts much easier, and I bet I would get positive replies to half my emails if I were to send an email to every academic cited in the Chinese classifier article. (I find it also helps to have a @cam.ac.uk email address.) Concerning future work you would like to do with her, I'm sure you could present Chinese classifier as an example of the quality you can produce. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... this article has basically been practice for my literature review. I started reading papers, then when I noticed in what poor shape this article was I started rewriting it based on what I was reading. Although I must say, thanks to the extensive reviewing from you and a few others, this article is probably written at a higher quality than the literature reviews in most published journal articles! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

question

hi, a question. the source says its a VMA. why did you cross that out?--Applegigs (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not part of the main awards, it's a random little award that they happen to be throwing in with the VMAs. Look at the VMA winners site-- this award is not there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

the page that i put in as a footnote calls it a vma. also i im reading that the real name of the award is the mtv vma best breakout nyc artist. the footnote calls it a vma and the entry form calls it a vma. thats big. mtv always has had some different awards that start on different years. this is like baseball having a rookie of the year award for the first time when they started. of course the rookie was not as famous as the mvp. but it was still major league baseball giving an award. here it is mtv giving out an award they call a mtv vma for a new band. but its a vma from what i am reading.--Applegigs (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my previous message at all? Again: if it's such a major award, why is it not on the website at all? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

hi. did i miss something? i tried to say that it is clearly a mtv vma, that the mtv contest says it is, that the other material i gave you says it is, and that the mtv logo says it is. there is some official stuff there. i think that that information is pretty strong. i dont think mtv uses the mtv vma logo with something and calls it a vma and awards it at the vmas without it being an mtv vma. as to the website, who knows. maybe someone screwed up and will be fired. maybe they used last years template by accident. but that doesnt wipe out everything else. we have official statements that it is an mtv vma from mtv. isnt that enough?--Applegigs (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Only press releases. Press releases are meaningless as far as notability is concerned; these awards haven't been the subject of reliable, independent coverage. They're simply too insignificant, and they're nothing but minor local awards (in fact, they aren't even being broadcast nationally, they're only broadcast locally). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But the VMA's are notable and all that official material shows that this is an VMA though i am guessing not your favorite one. and the press release and the competition rules are from very big offical companies including mtv which runs the vmas. once its a vma i think it is notable as a big award.--Applegigs (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Re-education Through Labor camps in China

Hi Rjanag,

According to http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/5._September_2009&diff=prev&oldid=64223788 there are to many faults in the lists in the de. Wikipedia. What should be done then? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiner Stoppok (on en-wiki at least) is an unconstructive troll and his opinion matters very little to me...did you see his rants at Talk:List of Re-education Through Labor camps in China#In quest for "Judong" or Wikipedia Laowai Handbook? and User talk:rjanag/Archive6#Wikipedia Laowai Handbook? He's only here to start a fight, he's useless. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/ew fix

Thanks for repairing my report, but please forgive me as I have been up for the past 26 hours. :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV VMAs are major awards

As to your deletion of the reference to an MTV VMA nomination at [26], I'm OK with it for the moment but not for the reason that you state. You refer to it as "a minor award." That is a mischaracterization. The MTV VMAs are in fact decidedly major awards. This is clearly an MTV VMA, as you can see at [27] and [28]. As such, it is a major award. And, as WP:BAND makes clear, for purposed of notability since the band placed (top 3, of 190 under consideration) it is treated the same for notablity puposes under that guidance as it would have been treated if it had won the VMA.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's major, it's still puffery. Do you see any of the other bands in that sentence introduced with "____ nominee"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there was a lack of balance, which is why I was fine the deletion. It was your mischaracterization of an MTV VMA as "a minor award" that I did not agree with.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We will see. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Duanmu

Rjanag, in response to your question on my talk page, no, I wasn't at the conference where Duanmu read his paper. I linked to it simply because a Google search turned it up. It's great to know, though, that we have some professional linguists at the RD! I, unfortunately, am a mere amateur. Greetings! Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All About The Reboot

Hey Rjanag, as I made a category of reboots in television and video games I thought it be different like sequels and prequels. Reboot is all about starting over the story creating something new which is not a sequel or a remake or a prequel, it's just something what hollywood studios did with films like Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Casino Royale. Semi-prequel are serve as both a sequel and a prequel with flash backs and flash forwards that what they did with The Godfather, part 2 and Internal Affairs 3. --Lg16spears (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry solid. Gosh, you take the editing seriously. man just having some fun. chill out yoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.93 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2009

This was not you

I'm going to guess that this is a vandal? Colipon+(Talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no, I was just making fun of some of the uber-nationalistic posters we dealt with in the last article.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Not One Less

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Not One Less, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here have a barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for replacing those 100 unnecessary Chinese language templates with {{zh}} — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Now I only need to spend a few more nights on AWB clicking the button hundreds of times, and then the migration should be complete :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Air Service Lead

Could you please have a look at User:RoyDickson/Sandbox and leave your opinion/revision of the current lead. The lead will be used for the Star Air Service article which is currently a GA nominee. I'd like to thank you in advance for your continued support and participation in welcoming(and explaining) RoyDickson to wikipedia. I hope you are noticing that your efforts are bearing some fruit ^.^.Smallman12q (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wish

thanks for the birthday wish, good to know some editors have soft hearts to go with their sharp intellects! Peace, Kbob -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with NewDYKnom

Not sure what's happened here exactly, but a couple of multinoms I recently submitted to DYK suggestions didn't format properly, see here. The problem seems to be that the comment code () doesn't nest properly. You might want to take a closer look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks f or the pointer; I think it's fixed now. (Tested it here).

Also I noticed your nom had 8 articles...did you try to nom more than that? So far the template is only written for 8, so if you add an |article9= or beyond they will disappear. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, only eight. I could have made it a 16-article blockbuster, but that would have been pretty silly just for a bunch of ship articles I think. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My biggest nom is only 2, so 8 still looks like a blockbuster to me ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well compared to the hooks some contributors have been putting together, eight is looking like pretty small beer these days :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

another sock

can you take a look at User:Cccbut? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like NuclearWarfare got him. Sorry about the delay. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

'Wikibirthday'

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

Hello, Here is a Help Request

You responded to a request on a different board that evidently would have involved blocking a different user. Let me take a moment to try and explain the situation in a place and way that is perhaps more appropriate?

I have been waiting for corroboration of a Request for Comment during the past 3 weeks! The instructions on the Request for Comment page say not to post to another noticeboard, and that if requirements are not met, the Request is deleted in approximately 48 hours. However, the page has not been deleted through 3 weeks, and is the main reason for my delay in seeking help elsewhere.

The user inquietudeofcharacter repeatedly erred when posting on my new talk page to allege vandalism. It was his or her response to good faith editing, which happened to be pursuant to 44 short-term revisions by the other party.

After the other user refused to follow through with mediation, the mediator did not make any contributions to this web site for 3 weeks or so. During all of this time, I have been seeking help from our former mediator. Two persons are needed for a request for comment, but there has been no activity from him, and I did not try to involve anyone else in this matter.

To summarize: the good faith edits I have made are still erased, and the only way to restore the information would be through "edit warring." Nothing has been done to warrant the allegations on my talk page, thus a direct dialogue with the other user is being avoided. Hopefully you can be helpful toward me with this matter, because the interactions thus far have not been worthwhile. WayGoneOr (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he only gave you one vandalism warning; maybe it was inappropriate because some of the issues were content disagreements, but he is correct that at least one of your edits broke the link to a reference (here, further down, where you added a period in "Suppo.rt"—that would have caused the URL not to work). It looks to me like his second message to you was an attempt to explain what the issues are so that you can understand why your edits were removed and hopefully then you two can find a compromise. I don't consider that message an "allegation", and in any case Wikipedia is not a court of law.

"A direct dialogue with the other user is being avoided" won't help the matter. He made an effort to leave a message with you; you should do the same. Nothing will improve if you're not willing to talk about the real content issues and are only willing to go to noticeboards and seek blocks.

I still see no need for administrator intervention here. You guys just need to start talking, and both of you need to stop accusing one another of being vandals. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, the edit warring noticeboard was certainly not the right place to go looking for input about a disagreement that happened 2 months ago. If you want to get other editors to comment, try listing a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion or WP:WikiProject Colleges or WP:WikiProject Boston; those are more appropriate (But please note: do not list a request there until you have actually started having a discussion at the Boston College page or on Inquietude's talk page; if you list a request when there is no discussion underway, it won't do any good). The edit warring noticeboard is only used for seeking blocks for people who are being disruptive right now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your quick response is appreciated!

To his credit, as you point out, something happened with the touchpad on my netbook to inadvertently put a '.' someplace where it should not be.

Evidently, you overlooked the "Welcome Notice" that inquietude posted on my talk page? It begins "...welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies...vandalism..."

Serious problems with what he was doing have only been partially corrected. There is relevant, newly supported information, about the university being the first established in Boston. It has long been part of the article, as lucidly explained on the talk page, prior to the other user's advent. Again, he has refused to discuss this via mediation, and continued to (poorly) revise the article while mediating.

Maybe there is some way I can address other aspects of the matter through the Wikipedia:Third opinion link that you provide? Initially, I made a contribution to an entry on inquietude's page regarding the article, started by someone else, but it is archived now. The Request for Comment [29] still appears to only need another party's 'corroboration.'

If you have any other suggestion(s), I may feel quite capable of contributing. WayGoneOr (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really the person to come to asking about information, content issues, or what specifically should be written in the article; I know nothing about this topic and am too busy to start editing that article. But if you want to have a discussion about what the article should say, leave a polite message with him or with some other editor who you know is involved in that sort of topic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Alefbe

I believe User:Alefbe does not deserve to get blocked. He was actually correcting vandalism by the other user, who was deleting sourced information, substituing reliable source by poor and unreliable sources, e.g Press TV, the propaganda machine of Islamic Republic of Iran. On the other hand, the other user in Qods Day article deserves a longer blocking for clear vandalism.--WIMYV? (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Read What vandalism is not before writing any more messages like this. Disagreements over content are not vandalism. And both users were clearly edit warring; no matter who is right, edit warring is not acceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, deleting sourced information is vandalism. Is n't? He insisted to delete sourced information from New York Times, reliable books, and Aljazira, despite several warning by different users. Is not it vandalism? That incident was not content dispute. One user deleted sourced information added, unsourced information or poorly sourced materials. The other one resorted those sourced information and had constructive edits. They should not be treated the same way.

Anyhow, if you do not mind. I am going to restore deleted sourced information.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When there is clearly a content dispute, you should talk things out at the talk page; just because your opponents are blocked doesn't mean you have free leeway to continue the edit war now. If things continue I'll have no choice but to protect the other page.

And no, removing sourced information isn't vandalism if the user honestly believes that information doesn't belong. You may not agree with his reasons—his reasons may even be totally wrong—but that's all it is, a disagreement. Not vandalism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on article talk page. Perhaps you have not checked the article history. I have not reverted yet. As you see, I am discussing the issue with other users.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you wrote " another user is close" to get blocked when I am discussing the issue and have not reverted yet--WIMYV? (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your logic to block Alefbe is the same as warning me and threatening me to block when I am discussing the issue and when I have not touched the article yet. I am really cond=fused about the way you handle the problem.--WIMYV? (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I have discussed the matter with the other party on both his talk page and the article talk page, and I have not reverted more than 3 times. Izzedine (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Don't revert my edits [30]" is not a discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues with edit warring on Sharon Keller

Thank you. I will take your advice.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having spotted and corrected this nasty trick. I hadn't noticed. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Developed market

I'm fed up with reverting, again again, the strange version about the "internationally list".

P.S. I don't think his newly created accounts have to be blocked again and again; Semi-protecting the article - will be much more effective, as I realized in the case of the article: Emerging market (for more details, see his request on my talk page, here). Thank you in advance.

HOOTmag (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Benjamin's Syndrome

Thanks for the help with these IP SPAs. Can you watchlist Harry Benjamin's Syndrome? They have already reverted you. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days, hopefully that will take care of the worst of the new IPs. We'll see what happens after that.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ANI notification. I believe it's clear to anyone uninvolved what's going on, so I don't plan to get too involved. I have written on science, sex, and gender off-wiki for about 15 years, and it is a very controversial area. It has more than its share of fringe theorists who create and promulgate bogus diseases and "theories" like this all the time (everything from iatrogenic artifact by "experts" to populist disease movements). These people get very agitated when their notions are challenged and will do anything in their power to fight their perceived "enemies." Unfortunately, many come here and disrupt Wikipedia, often culminating in a permanent block. I'm traveling to speak on this topic at a university later this week, so I'll probably just let this matter run its course without much more involvement. I appreciate your help on this. Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One quick favor. Yesterday User:74.124.187.76 removed from Transsexualism an article of mine that the "HBS" proponents dislike because it is critical of disease models like theirs. (diff) I did not add it, and I try not to edit that page since my work is cited in a couple of places. Citation is: James A (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine. 3:56 ISSN:15508579. You can confirm in Google Scholar. I have it free online as PDF and Full text. If you determine that the removal was unwarranted, I'd appreciate if you could add the citation back. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Should I self-revert? I've had problems with edit warring in the past, and don't want to get into hot water again... Soxwon (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're fine; this seems to be your first edit in this dispute anyway. But probably be careful about reverting again if this goes on (because I've already decided that I'm going to block people who revert again, now that I've issued warnings).

This new section seems like something that's going to need to be written in userspace or a subpage and then approved before going into the article. I'm gonna post at the talk page in a minute. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Since you intervened last time I thought maybe you could help again. It seems that Arzel and Soxwon are still doing the same as before. I just undid an edit by Arzel that he deleted someone’s comments in the TALK page under the guise it was a personal attack yet it did not have anybody’s name in it and was a statement of replay to Soxwon. Both of them seem to be bent of editing out anything that goes against their beliefs and their bias shows up in many articles. They have even written to each other about removing negative items from conservative articles. They don’t try and work on a way to get things edited fairly they just keep deleting them and not offering any help on it. Then if added they say there is not agreement as they will not even try to form a agreement. Any help in this would be appreciated. --Marlin1975 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the history and I see that neither of them has edited the article since I warned them two days ago. I don't see what the problem is now? I'm not really too concerned about what they do at their talk pages, as long as they're not damaging an article. If you think is a problem, the place you might want to file a report is WP:Wikiquette alerts, although it depends what exactly the problem is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Marlin, the comment that was deleted (and that I removed) WAS a personal attack, considering it implied that I was delusional. If you are referring to my McDonnell edit (my lone edit to the article) then perhaps my idea of WP:BLP and WP:IINFO is different than yours. I'd like to see the collusion I had with Arzel, considering all I did was ask him to round up editors from a previous discussion. (apologies to Rjanag, if you have a reply Marlin, please leave it on my talk page). Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see both of them have now deleted someone’s post in talk that made no single reference to single person. Yet they both call it a personal attack? Thanks for the advice. --Marlin1975 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Marlin, I suggest you read up on WP:FORUM. This editor wasn't adding anything to the discussion, and was only trying to incite a fight by calling conservatives stupid if they don't believe in evolution, since the article is clearly not about evolution, and is not about conservatives it has no place. Calling people stupid is a personal attack. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration of HBS deletion dispute page on request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration needed for this article's dispute page and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--CharlotteGoiar (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor you blocked may now be using socks

Hello Rjanag. Since you handled a 3RR case about Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) perhaps you could look at the report over at WT:WikiProject Physics#Poincaré-POV-pushing. I was thinking of blocking Cardinality and Iphegenia as socks of Flegelpuss, but that I would ask at least one other admin to look at the data and see if you agree. If you don't have time, I'll make another plan. Both accounts were created just after Flegelpuss's block expired and they have remarkably narrow interests, focused on F's usual topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there's probably a connection, I trust your judgment. I'm not really familiar with Flegelpuss other than that brief AN3 report, so I don't have a very good idea what his style is. I did notice that Iphegenia's only edits seem to be spelling changes, whereas Cardinality has made a lot more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Now what we can do

Now user Paradoxic just come back with a long revert of the version which was the result of our discussions and the fragile consensus with the other party. Now, what we can do? I do not want to start editwarring with him? He is unwilling to discuss and just deleting sourced information and reliable sources, NY TImes,BBC, Christian Science Monitor, two books, Aljazeera... He just accept the mouthpiece of the Islamic regime of Iran a reliable source, delete other sources. --WIMYV? (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it will be more appropriate to protect the article, since several people are reverting one another and there is also talkpage discussion going on—and I can't easily see any clear consensus there. But if you can provide me with a) diffs of Paradoxic's reverts today and diffs of the specific edits that he was undoing; b) a link to some part of the talk page that shows a clear consensus between more editors than just you and Alefbe , then that would help things along. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here [31]. Nableezi (from the other camp) and ShamWOW and I agreed to keep the assertions of both parties: Press TV report (Islamic Regime source) and reports of independent media, i.e. NY Times, Christian Science Monitor and Aljaziree. There was only a discussion ongoing on the source that I provided on association of antisemitism and Quds day when the Pradoxic came back and reverted all of our edits and deleted our sources. We let the other camp to keep their source (Press TV), but Paradoxic unwilling to keep our independent sources. He also changing sourced information adding hi own claims and POVs that are not supported by the source. See these diffs: [32] , [33] , [34] , [35]--WIMYV? (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please notify ShamWOW and nableezy of this thread and ask them to comment as well? So I can make sure they also feel there was a consensus.

I am about to be away from my computer for about 2 hours. If any of you need administrator assistance before then, you may want to try getting on touch with one of the other admins who has dealt with this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag! You participated in discussion on 2009 protest section. I should not remind you all we did. First, I said that Press Tv information should be deleted because Press TV is unreliable source. Nableezy disagreed. ShamWOW suggested both independent sources and Press TV should stay but it should be mentioned that Press TV is an state funded news media. Nableezy did not agreed, until you intervened and said that it is OK to mention that Press TV is funded by the regime. You forget that? We decided to keep both arguments, pro-government media and independent sources arguments.

The Paradoxic violated 3rr once again, because the last time you did not blocked him for the violation of 3rr, you give him more co0nfidence to violate the 3rr rule. Yu should punish him this time. He deleted information icluding the sentence " In recent years, only a marginal proportion of young Iranians have attended." 4 times. [36] , [37] , [38] , [39]--WIMYV? (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I left one comment in that section, that doesn't mean I'm totally aware of what the decisions are over the whole talkpage. Keep in mind that this is a long a complicated dispute and someone just showing up now won't necessary know all the history of what has been discussed before. The reason I couldn't tell how bad Paradoxic's edits were is that in each of the reverts there are some things he changed every time (such as the "millions" statement) and others that he appeared to be tweaking per other editor's comments. In article editing it's natural for their to be some back-and-forth editing that gradually approaches consensus, and without you giving me more information about the reverts it was very difficult for me to tell where that kind of acceptable editing/tweaking ended and where unacceptable edit-warring began. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont really care about this issue. I said that I felt that adding state funded was unnecessary and why, that is not supported by the rest of the users so I didnt remove it after it was reverted back in. I just dont want people removing things from Press TV. The rest of this is fighting over things that shouldnt even be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that it is overly focused on this years rally when the even goes back 30 years. Besides that I dont really care about the pro vs anti Iranian government bickering on the page. I think there have been a few users edit warring with each other, and that one "side" has more than 1 user reverting does not make that "side" not edit warring. nableezy - 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Press TV should be included. I believe it is necessary that state-funded or something like it be included due to the more questionable nature of its reporting. However, that should not be the issue that is preventing further editing on the article. And I agree that the article is skewed in its coverage of 2009 Quds Day but the protests on that occasion are quite unique in the history of that event. Finding a history of Quds Days since 1979 is not readily available. In general, users here need to be more discriminating in not indiscriminately deleting or adding large swathes of information. And please--be meticulous in your editing (grammar, referencing, etc.) so the article does not need to be consistently cleaned up.ShamWow (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of By Day By Night

Thanks for your message and the link to useful information about deletion tags. It will help with my patrolling. I notice that the article was deleted anyway. In your opinion, what SD tag should have been used? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Love

...you just deleted my article, without bothering to verify the fact that I typed, on the talk page, that I am a student of Ms. Love and did this WITH HER PERMISSION. Also she is featured in a list of Metropolitan Opera singers, but I can't add a page off that. Please offer help before deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operagirlk (talk • contribs)

I already left a message at your talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it a conflict of interest, as all it is is her biography, and she is listed in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performers_at_the_Metropolitan_Opera without a wiki page. I would prefer to simply be allowed to post her unbiased biography. I'm sorry if the first message sounded short tempered. Operagirlk (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)operagirlk

I would agree, were I not the person who wrote the bio for her on her webpage in the first place. Hence, not plagiarism. However, since this seems to be a sticking point, I can rewrite the entire biography so it is not the same if this will satisfy ToS. Operagirlk (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Operagirlk

Fine, however I feel that since she has already been referred to on a Wikipedia article, she deserves to have her own page. I'm not sure exactly how one can go about writing an article without your conflict of interest policy kicking in - I merely saw the reference, mentione dit to her, and she said "well, just write who I am". Conflict of interest to me would be stating how I feel about her as a person and teacher, not how many roles she has performed and where. But I understand that you are simply following rules. Operagirlk (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)operagirlk

An odd image

But it looks cool! ;) Rockfang (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please help

I've tried to start a discussion again at Talk:Borjigit, Empress Dowager Zhuang Wen to move this senseless name back to Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang. So far no one seems to be interested in participating. When it was moved to the current name, there was no attempts at consensus. "ED Xiaozhuang" is the name she is most commonly referred to, a Google-test for "Xiaozhuang" trumps all other alternative names, it is easy to find, and precise, as well as concise, fitting all the criteria of WP:TITLE. I therefore ask an administrator to help me move the article there over the re-direct. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The move is done; I'll leave it up to you to sort out the actual text in the article so it fits with the title. There are also several double redirects [40] that need to be fixed, you can clean them up today if you want or I can do them with AWB this evening. (AWB may be faster, I'm just about to go out for the day right now.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. they did have some misinformation. Now once I figure out how to put a picture in, I'll be set. :) Operagirlk (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Operagirlk

my WikiBirthday

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

Thanks!

Sorry for the confusion about the deletion tagging. Thanks for your help! --Tallen90 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Regular expression

According to WP:PLURAL, the title for that article should be Regular expression. Similarly, although the article on Turing machines is not about any specific machine, the title is still Turing machine. We just always prefer singular titles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that guideline, which I hadn't seen. Nevertheless, I think this article falls under the exception listed in "unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)". It may not always be in the plural form, but I personally have almost never heard anyone talking about "a regular expression"...it usually seems to be "use regular expressions...", "i know regular expressions...", "regular expressions are useful", etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have never heard anyone say, "I wrote a regular expression to do that"? Searching for "a regular expression" on google, with the quotes, give 6 million hits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to move it back that's fine, I was just being bold. If it's controversial then it should be moved back anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken template?

Might want to scroll down to this section to see how Template:Zh- is now missing in red. Looks like something was changed? Benjwong (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything missing, or in red? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely fixed now. Thx for the notice. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Korea /Hernandez

Hi Rjanag, I was browsing my watchlist in the run and I accidentally rollback an edit in the Korea article, I'm not an expert in the subject so can you look into that?

I dont think Dalia is notable yet, at least that my quick impression by looking at the sources in the article. Take care, --Jmundo (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit looks fine to me (and I see you self-reverted already). Korean is the language, Hangul is the script in which it's written; some people seem to prefer saying "Hangul: bla bla bla" but I think "Korean: bla bla bla" makes much more sense, since what we're actually giving is a Korean word that happens to be written in Hangul, not a "Hangul" word. (It would be like giving English translations as "Latin alphabet: bla bla bla".)

Thanks for looking into Dalia! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! You must see Revision history of Template:Members of the Union for the Mediterranean for User:Izzedine's editing style. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with his disruptive editing; if you go into his user talkpage history and go back a few hours you'll see pages and pages of messages (which he's since removed) where he was trying to get unblocked and repeatedly declined, by at least 3 different admins, who basically told him "don't edit war". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Turkish Flame's edit-warring? Izzedine (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times, Izzedine, have you been told to address your own actions, not others'? You are only responsible for what you yourself are doing. Other peoples' edit-warring doesn't give you permission to edit war as well; if you edit war, you can be blocked regardless of what the others are doing. If you have a problem with someone else's edit warring, you know where to report it. Eye for an eye is not an acceptable way for you to deal with other users' editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that applies to unblock requests. It is simply wrong for consideration of one user's actions to be made in isolation of the other party's actions. Why have you not warned Turkish Flame also? why have you not said the same thing to him? Izzedine (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I use talk pages, I provide sources, etc. unlike you. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care, my talk page isn't the place to short out who's better than whom. I'm just watching the articles to make sure there's no edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reorganizing template usage, okay, but did you mean to get political?

I don't actually like to watch the insane panics when people get inordinately upset at changes that verge on politics, so I kinda want to ask "did you mean it?". Your change of templates had the (unintended?) effect of reordering the traditional/simplified presentations in Standard_Mandarin#Native_names. It was simp/trad, and now is trad/simp, and possibly because you explicitly said to put traditional first (I'm guessing at what "|first=t|" means).

I really wouldn't be surprised if someone starts saying "but it says mainland China first and you have traditional first - you have messed up things!"

I'm not going to check around where else something like this might've happened, because I'm already nervous. Just wondering if you've thought about the (political) side-effects of reorganization? :-( Shenme (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake; I didn't mean to add first=t there, it was an unintentional reorganization. In actuality, I'm trying my best to avoid reorganization.

In some articles (ie, Taiwan- and Hong Kong-related ones), it's more appropriate to have trad. characters first, and that was reflected in the templates used there (for instance, templates like zh-tscyp or whatever put the traditional first automatically), so when I replaced them I added |first=t to make sure they wouldn't get reorganized. It looks like this time I accidentally included |first=t when I shouldn't; seems that {{zh-tspl}}, which I was replacing, is deceptive (it has t first in its name, but it actually shows simplified first). When I remember AWBing that last night, the pages that transcluded it were a mix of mainland and Taiwan-related topics (there were 50-some ROC baseball players in there, for example), and on several articles I was manually going in and removing the |first=t before AWB put it in; must have just missed a few on this article. Thanks for the notice, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

95.25.237.61 - IP user's disruption

Hi, Rjanag, since you're an active admin, please look into the disruptions carried by 95.25.237.61 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)? The IP user has changed the names of Korean athletic players during the Japanese occupation period to Japanese name.[41] As if they were still holding Japanese name and citizenship after the liberation in 1945. The IP user has also added information without sources, but deleted something that he dislikes for his POV in the name of "no citation" and "NPOV". The anon's edits are of course neutral to himself/herself only. I think the person reminds me of some Russian POV pusher or open proxy editor disguising a third person. Your administrative actions or editor's input would be appreciated. Talk:List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#Koreans. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input.--Caspian blue 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Daryl Copeland page - Re-Post - No copyright infringement

Hello,

You have deleted the page for Daryl Copeland citing copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Copeland

There is no copyright infringement. Some of the text is the same as Mr. Copeland wrote it. As can be seen on the referenced web page, Mr. Copeland is part of that organization.

The text appears on several other sites by Mr. Copeland as well. This does not make it copyright infringement.

What was the rationale to take it down?

No message was sent indicating that the page was deleted due a copyright concern as is supposed to occur.

Please put the page back online right away.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularities (talk • contribs)

The failure to send you a message regarding the deletion is not my issue; that would have been the responsibility of User:Jpeeling, the editor who originally tagged the article for deletion. Normally the editor who tags an article also leaves a message informing the creator.

As for the copyright issues... well, first of all, whether or not Copeland wrote that text is irrelevant unless you are Copeland. To be able to post copyrighted text and claim you have the right, you need to prove that you are the person who owns that text; that is generally done by contacting Wikipedia's OTRS e-mail team through Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit. That being said, even if you do own the copyright to that text, there are several reasons not to restore the article:

Writing quality: even if you wrote text somewhere else, Wikipedia is its own source and should have its own writing. Directly copying-and-pasting text from elsewhere, even when it's not outright copyright violation, is often plagiarism, and is almost always lazy writing. It reflects poorly on the encyclopedia (when people find an article here and see that it's copied from elsewhere—they don't generally know the copyright background and will assume Wikipedia is full of plagiarism). If you really want to start an article about Copeland, you should do so in your own words.
Notability concerns and conflict of interest. If you are Mr. Copeland and hold the copyright to this text, then you are in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia guidelines (linked just above) strongly discourage writing articles about yourself, as it will be just about impossible to write from a neutral point of view. Also, the article needs to demonstrate why the individual meets Wikipedia's notability policy, which text copied from other websites usually does not do.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you will find the updated document allays any concerns you may have had. Thank you.

unima-usa

Hi The article on unima-usa was my first attempt at wikipedia article Unima is listed in wikepedia there is the standard wikipedia note saying that no article exists on unima-usa

It was my understanding that" Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" is justification for creating an article

unima united kingdom and unima Pakistan have articles

I am new to this

how can i get an article on unima-usa added? Steve Abrams, Vice President unima-usa north american editor of the World Encyclopedia of Puppetry Arts

thx

Thaaaank you. This has been going on for days with ~20 Portugal-based IPs finding 4 or 5 different sources for the same junk... tiresome & tedious Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raptor Education Group

Hi Rjanag. Could you please userfy Raptor Education Group Inc. for me? It's been blogged here and I'd like to see what's going on. But if it was all copyvio, never mind, about userfying, just let me know. Thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Clayoquot/Raptor Education Group Inc. for now; it is borderline copyvio (clear plagiarism, but only borderline copyvio), so I'll probably re-delete it after you've had a chance to look at it. Since the blog post is from September 4 and I only deleted it yesterday, I imagine the blog is referring to this revision of it, where it was tagged for speedy deletion (and declined) back in July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest, I don't see the copyvio here. It seems that an effort has been made to change wordings. Notability is questionable, and neither of the cited references establishes notability. One of them is a broken link and the other one is not independent. But if these people have been doing good work for 19 years, I think there's a reasonable chance that someone could find sources somewhere. I'd take it to AfD if I were you, even if only to have the community take responsibility for the deletion rather than shouldering it all yourself. Just a thought. Best regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the entire text of http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm is present there; a few words and sentences are added here and there, but the website is copied in its entirety. And, as I always say when performing speedy deletions, an article like this is obvious plagiarism even if it's not certainly copyvio (like I said above, the copyvio here is borderline, and the plagiarism certain). If you think the subject is noteworthy, you're welcome to recreate the article without copyvio, or just as a stub; there's not really any reason for me to take it to AfD now since it's already deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The organization's mission statement should be in quotation marks and attributed, but with these I'm pretty sure it could be included verbatim as fair use. The part about it permits is also the kind of thing that should not be rephrased, because any rephrasing would make it less accurate. Anyway, just sharing my opinions. Thanks for chatting. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clayoquot: this does not look like a copyvio, nor suitable for an A7 deletion. By volume of animals treated alone it is a significant animal rehabilitation center; and it was better sourced than many articles we choose to keep. When someone questions a speedy deletion, and an author or interested party is obviously distressed by said deletion, those are two reasons to take it to AfD. Having one's work deleted, whatever the cause, is often grounds to leave Wikipedia and not return; and we would like to attract contributors (who will become better contributors in time, and never start out perfectly) rather than animosity.

As you suggest above, I've recreated the article. +sj + 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You think it's not copyvio, and yet it's full of sentences literally copied and pasted from http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm ? I suggested recreating it as a stub, not recreating it as plagiarism. Like it says on my userpage: you're never going to get me to apologize for deleting plagiarized junk, it's not something we need on Wikipedia.

I see no need to take it to AfD now because I've tried to clean up the copied-and-pasted sentences and I don't really care about the notability concern. But please don't re-create plagiarism in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And as for your argument about user retention... maybe you could check the article history before making arguments like this. The article was created a year ago, so the editor has either moved on from now or already learned his lesson. In this case, the editor had been gone for two weeks and was not likely to be back anytime soon, so you can't expect me to 'work with' an absent editor to clean up plagiarism. And are you saying that user retention is so important we should leave plagiarism in the encyclopedia, just on the gamble that that user might turn into a productive editor someday (keeping in mind that the vast majority of new accounts here do not become productive)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New Signature

Hey, thanks for the code --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier on Main Page

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 3, 2009. Shubinator (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to see the TFA queue scheduled so far ahead! Thanks for the update, I'll have to inform my Chinese pals to keep their eyes out... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Raul just did a bunch up to the 4th. With the bigger queue proofreaders like Art can catch more mistakes. Plus the FA nominator gets time to spread the word. Shubinator (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MYSPACE COMMENT

You're right about that but is it bad to chat with friends while editing? 63.230.167.170 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking through your contributions, it would appear you aren't editing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun (film)

Comments as to other editor's work are not suitable for edit summaries, but the associated article talk page can be the appropriate venue as long as the evaluation was constructive. Did you consider your recent commentary to be helpful or useful? (A disclaimer, The recent comments made are "water on a duck's back" in my case as my contributions to the article revolved around assisting the primary editor, whose work and effort was considerable to take an article from a moribund state to qualifying as GA candidate.) The edits that were instituted can be further characterized as simply "author's choice" edits and do not substantially change the thrust of the passages, as I showed in a further revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

You recent note brings up valid and cogent points of divergence; I may have missed something in seeing these statements in other forums? on the article talk page? If substantial revisions are required then it is customary although under WP:Bold not necessary to address those concerns in a preliminary way. FWiW, the plot section of a movie article is, in many cases, an author's vehicle and rarely requires more than a summary. Be assured that it is not disagreement with your edits that was the issue, it was the manner in which the edit comments were used as a rhetorical device, one that was more "stream-of-consciousness" than balanced and constructive. Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Our discourse seems to be going in two different paths. I do not disagree with your analysis of the plot nor the revisions that you provided. In that regard, I made a rudimentary edit to show that the syntax and "word styling" was merely "wordsmithing" which is entirely an author's choice (a publisher's term for allowance of individual styles of expression). What was most at issue was not the revisions but the manner in which they were being described as correcting some "drivel" which can be difficult to construe in anything other than let's say, uncomplimentary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" was the subject of numerous research efforts as to ethonology. Reviewing contemporary sources and every authoritative reference on the P-51 Mustang has led to the conclusion that there is no World War II origin for the word. All this revolves around the dreaded WP:OR and has led to lively discussions with P-51 pilots, museum curators and historians, none of which can provide substantiation for the phrase, while I can point directly to Ballard's use of the literary device. He was crudely trying to assert the industrial iconography of the Cadillac to the equally redoubtable fighter aircraft. I consider it a crude device as the GM Company was indeed involved in war production, but ironically, the Packard Company produced the RR Merlin engine used in the P-51. In Ballard's elaborate "connections to home", Jim wanders a scrapyard in China to discover his father's Packard sedan. Regardless, there is no source that can identify the catchword as wartime in origin. FWiW, the use of the term "Mandarin lettering" was an unfortunate use of the verbatim terminology in the original source document. Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC).Now, don't over-react on the term, it was what the text used, and after your edit, I retrieved the magazine article and checked the source to see if they had used the word "Mandarin" which it had. Using one word does not imply a copy-viol. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" reference has gone the way of the "Billy the Kid/William Bonney" conundrum in that when the legend reads, sounds, looks better than the truth, go with the epic story. I totally embarrassed myself this summer at an air show when the announcer proclaimed the next attraction would be the "Cadillac of the skies", and consequently, a brace of P-51 Mustangs took to the air. I sought him out after the event and asked if he could identify the source of the statement. Not only was he a P-51 Mustang pilot and owner, he was a highly regarded member of the warbird community and basically treated me like the twit I am. He carefully enunciated that he knew that the phrase was from a movie, but who cares, everyone now links it to the P-51, and you know what we old fighter guys think of you know-it-alls? (He didn't actually express the last exchange, but I KNOW he was thinking that!) FWiW, the actual phrase used by Ballard was "Cadillac of air combat" (p. 151) while the screenplay converts that to a number of comments, using the phraseology of "Cadillac of the skies". Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

I have to admit that I am actually enjoying this back-and-forth, as I had placed the edit comment in a kind of snobbish, "so there" kind of way, firmly believing that your original statements were out of the line (which I still believe...) but your recourse to reasoned, articulate discourse has completely disarmed me. As to attribution to a source that I authored, that may be problematic. As a historian (yes, you have to be officially recognized as such in Canada), with nine books and 13 films in my resume, my research on the P-51 Mustang can be traced to a meager two articles for publication and neither dealt with the origins of the type except in a perfunctory way. FWiW Bzuk (talk).

Admin edits

Could you please help with renaming File:24042008354.jpg, File:24042008350.jpg and File:24042008391.jpg as per the rationale given in the "rename media" template requests? Thanks, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should be done now. Let me know if there are any problems, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I looked it up in _two_ dictionaries... :-) Shenme (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you're right. Thanks for catching that! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pic Deletion 9/27/09

So on the terms that my picture isn't "qualified" for an encylopedia means it can't give my user page some flair? I feel then ALL pictures should be removed from user pages and all the userboxes. It doesn't make sence to me I'm sorry Spzmnky (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The multiple file names was not a circumnavigation, if you looked at the time stamps they were uploaded the same day. Try doing some research before threatening and assuming what is going on, did you ever think that I still don't have a full grasp on how to do a whole lot on WP? If Iknew how to delet a file I uploaded I would have.Spzmnky (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek at West Germany

As you just have protected the article there, please have a look at the conduct of User:Jacurek, who is wikistalking me. He had never edited this article before, and now he is reverting my edits in an attempt to provoke me. Jacurek and other Polish editors are currently under scrutiny by Arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list for such disruptive behaviour. -- Matthead Discuß 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Try discussing the actual article with him instead of worrying about behavioral and stalking issues. I'm sure you'll be able to get a lot more done if you talk about the article itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing like you did at Elisabeth Hevelius? You seem to apply good faith in rather unequal quantities. Have you read Talk:Elisabeth Hevelius? You have reverted to a version that had already been exposed to contain the false claim that a book contains "Elżbieta Heweliusz". Knowing this now, I believe you want to revert your edit. -- Matthead Discuß 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks.-- Matthead Discuß 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If people like Flroian want to make reverts, they would do well to leave edit summaries explaining why. That whole back-and-forth could have been avoided if she had taken the five seconds to say what I said in my edit summary. Next time she reverts like that she's blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What does an edit to an unrelated page have to do with this conflict? Please don't keep changing the subject. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. I have also received a friendly warning I will fully respect. Just to let you know since there is a lot more to it, the user User_talk:Matthead is currently under editing restrictions[[42]] due to his controversial edits and reverts in the past. He cannot revert more than once etc, etc. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That restriction only appears to be about civility, not edit warring. And it's from January 2008, so I don't know if it's even still active. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually reverting too but that is o.k. I'm not asking for anything, just to let you know that you are not dealing with problem free editor. Thanks, regards--Jacurek (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. Your warning will be respected.--Jacurek (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

That was quite helpful. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

your message

I will keep that in mind. I can take it from the usual vandals and other such people but when I hear it from administrators who I tend to see as being more mature and responsible, it just makes me a little more irritated. Particularly because their opinion of me is going to carry more weight and if they say that I am just power hungry than many people will actually believe them, seriously damaging my actual credibility. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 23:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Western Europe map.svg

Why did you delete File talk:Western Europe map.svg? The page does exist, and the image is being used. I had just left a comment there before you deleted it. Hayden120 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The image only exists on commons; it can be discussed there. If you like, I can copy the deleted discussion over to commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that would be appreciated. Hayden120 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ISO dates

There was an Arbcom ruling not to mass de-link any dates for six months unless community consensus rule otherwise. Community consensus has. There are some 60,000 linked ISO dates, de-linking them is non-controversial, but I have only done a very small percentage. It needs to be handed to a bot - and there is one in preparation I understand. However I might be able to pick-up some of the workload on SmackBot's normal runs. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Hm, well I de-link stuff as I go. WP:MOSNUM is now clear that dates should not be linked for auto-formatting purposes. However there may still be a number of people who are protective of certain links, therefore a little caution may be necessary. As I say some date-delinking bot is in the wings. so this should all be history soon. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

HELLO

Hey thanks for the heads up on my talk page. I will make sure to note that and keep editing articles which I HAVE done in the past, thanks for the warning I appreciate it. Also could you please remove my name from your message on User:stephani21's talk page? Thanks Cjones132002 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Matthead

Hello, just a notification, I am considering fulfilling the unblock request by User:Matthead. There's merit in his unblock request: he could reasonably assume that the 1RR restriction on Eastern Europe does not apply to West Germany (there is in fact no possible sense West Germany is part of Eastern Europe, neither geographically nor politically, and the edit he was making was also not related to any political/historical issue related to Eastern Europe). So the situation needs to be judged independently of the restriction, with all participants on equal footing. And then I notice that User:Jacurek made three reverts and wasn't blocked, while Matthead was blocked for two. This makes the block essentially unjust. This is particularly important because we know Jacurek was part of the infamous EE Mailing List and Matthead was one of their declared "enemies" and victims, so we must avoid doing anything that would give the impression of "rewarding" any further provocations and attempts of getting opponents blocked from that side. (See Jacurek's edit [43] earlier on this page, where he was falsely claiming M. was under a general edit restriction in order to get you to block him – given what we know about the background, I would not assume good faith for this false information.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

..and why it was false ?? He is under restrictions[44] I just did not know details and also I did not ask for any block for him, [[45]]go ahead unblock him.--Jacurek (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was false because the 1RR restriction applies only to Eastern European topics and therefore doesn't cover this article. And if you continue lobbying about this, I will block you. You are hereby officially warned for wiki-hounding; next time you do anything that could be interpreted as following your opponents around into edit-wars and/or badmouthing them to administrators will result in a lengthy block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Germany since, it was split into EAST and WEST is related to Eastern Europe. Now you threatening me with block also? M. was restricted for a reason you know? And I'm not lobbing about anything and frankly I don't care if M, is blocked or not. This is my original message to R: Actually reverting too but that is o.k. I'm not asking for anything, just to let you know that you are not dealing with problem free editor. You are under false impression and you are also a party in there[[46]]--Jacurek (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: ~~You are welcome to unblock Matthead if you think it appropriate~~ (Actually, I see you have done so); I have not because, even if this article was not covered by his sanction (keeping in mind that something does not have to be geographically within Eastern Europe to be an Eastern Europe-related topic), edit warring is still a violation and he knew he was doing it—plus, if he thinks that the fact that he can make an argument that this article is not part of his sanctions means he's "entitled" to 3 reverts on it, then he's gaming the system anyway. For what it's worth, I also warned Jacurek about edit warring a few days ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can agree to (slightly) disagree on the evaluation of the 2 (not 3) reverts – if we went by that logic, we could block anybody who ever did two reverts on an article and, if they protested, blame them for gaming the system. BTW, I have also counseled him to let the infobox stand. Sorry for taking action before awaiting your response, but it looked like you had gone offline and probably gone to sleep shortly before I first contacted you, and I didn't want to keep him waiting yet longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was asleep, so no worries :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, thanks for welcoming me. As you are aware I am new to Wikipedia so if I should do anything wrong, please do not take it against me! All the best,

Friendly Ed 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess that makes us two of us

but you could be the "needle of the scale", if you want to be that is.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any idea what you're talking about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. what I meant was… why don't you decide which revision is better?--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not interested in this article or its topic, and don't know anything about it. I'm just here to make sure people aren't editing disruptively. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

quick suggestion

just a quick suggestion on the riots article -- there is some info there (2.3 million people) that should have an as of date with it. Best, --Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i needs a favor

could you place the merger-proposal templates I placed on Talk:West Germany onto the page itself (you protected it)? Thx. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bsr... About DENIP

Bsr... DENIP n'est pas exactement une fête (holiday) puisque est un jour scolaire de travail et de refléxion... Si n'est pas admisible célebration il faut chercher un autre mot... En français et en espagnol nous usons bcp de fois activité pratique... Avec ma amitié... --Ayounali (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

C'est pas un jour férié? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Non, ce n'est pas un jour férié, mais un jour de travail scolaire dédié a refléchir et faire des activités pour prendre conscience des valeurs de la fraternité universelle, de la non-violence et de la paix. Voilà un article en anglais que j'ai trouvé:School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP)

By Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is held on January 30 every year, on the anniversary of the martyrdom in 1948 of Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence.

It will be celebrated, as always, in Majorca. The intiative for this "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" originated in Spain.

In Majorca, it was Llorenç Vidal in 1964 who founded the School Day. He now lives in Cádiz. He was influenced by Lanza del Vasto, a direct disciple of Gandhi. Del Vasto visited Majorca about 15 years ago, and his book "Le Retour aux Origines" ("Return to the Sources"), had an inmediate influence.

The basic message of the "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" states: "Universal Love, Non-violence and Peace. Universal Love is better than egoism. Non-violence is better than violence. Peace is better than war". Non-violence is the attitude of renouncing killing and inflicting pain on all breings in thought, word and action.

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a non-governmental, international and pioneering initiative of Pacificatory Education in which educational centres of all standards and of all the countries are invited to participate.

It is a practical activity which has neither official programming nor structural lines of action, because the message is one which maintains a permanent nucleus of basic aspects, and permits the free application of each educational centre according to its particular manner.

Professor Eulogio Díaz del Corral has written: "The 'School Day of Non-violence and Peace' was founded in Spain in 1964, when neither in Spain nor abroad did a similar initiative exist. It was maintained through hell and high water in very difficult circumstances, and it is considered the most important pioneering experience of Pacificatory Education of our time, as well as a dynamic nocleus of its promotion at a national and international level".

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a seed which is planted and cultivated in the hearts of the students. It is a bright, new and positive way of looking at the word and preparing for the future.

Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

Merci de votre attention...

--Ayounali (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Sorry about that huge disruption that happened, I am not sure who was behind it, but I do hope it doesn't happen again. And for the personal messages they are all done. Thanks --Cjones132002 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

quotes

You're right and I apologize for being sloppy about it. Typographical style at least has the virtue that we don't have to check if the source had punctuation. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CV Objective

Hello there, Can you reply my last question there. It will be much appreciated. Thank you.--119.30.36.34 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Crete

Because one of the users arbitrarily replaced the Template:Infobox Peri GR with the Template:Infobox settlement for no obvious reason. - Sthenel (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Front page!!! :D:D:D

And happy Mid-Autumn Festival. Fitting. ^^ -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully the vandals will be too busy eating mooncakes to trouble us ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the front page. :) Why is the traditional ge pictured, and not the simplified one? I think most people who know only very little Chinese would know the simplified character, but not necessarily the traditional one. Is it possible to change it? GeometryGirl (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The traditional ver is more detailed, while the simplified isn't detailed at all, roughly just "an arrow pointing up" to most people. I'd prefer the traditional in this case. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be changed easily, but I went with the traditional to avoid appearing PRC-centric...also, since I personally know simplified (and the article is written in simplified), I figured it would be most balanced to feature the other style (instead of featuring "my" style). There are also people out there who believe traditional is the "international standard" whereas simplified is "PRC only". Also, as traditional characters go, 個 is probably one of the most recognizable ones for Chinese learners (others that I learned pretty early were 對 and 學). Anyway, I did put together a mock-up a while ago of a main page with both, but I think it looked too crowded:

In Chinese, classifiers are words that must be used whenever a noun is modified by a number or a demonstrative such as "this" and "that". There are as many as 150 different classifiers, and many nouns are associated with certain ones—for example, flat objects such as tables use the classifier zhāng, whereas long objects such lines use tiáo. How exactly these classifier–noun associations are formed has been a subject of debate, with some linguists proposing that they are based on innate semantic features (i.e., all nouns with "long" features use a certain classifier), and others suggesting that they are motivated by analogy to prototypical pairings (i.e., dictionaries and textbooks use whatever the more general noun, "book", uses). There is also, however, a "general classifier", gè, which can be used in place of the specific classifiers; in informal speech, this one is used far more than any other. Furthermore, speakers often choose to use only a bare noun, dropping both the classifier and the number or demonstrative preceding it; therefore, some linguists believe that classifiers are used more for pragmatic reasons, such as foregrounding new information, rather than for strict grammatical reasons. (more...)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! The article really graces the front page. Ricardiana (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, great work here; it explains an important but difficult concept admirably. Nice in-joke as well, using this... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey Rjanag, thanks for the help with the Beale article while I was out. The subject is on my talk page, and while I've tried explaining it to him, I think a note from the deleter would help out a bit. ;) Thanks \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

是啊，很好笑吧？说我的编辑是mumbo-jumbo，你简直在耻笑中国人的智慧。我对於你这麽说感到遗憾，希望你下次撤回编辑时，不要抱着说笑的心态！--俠刀行 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

”中国人的智慧“我的屁。。。你编辑的并不是智慧，那是不需要的额外句子。此外，你的翻译是错的： "the cars in the road" 是没有动词的句子，应该翻成“马路上的车辆“。可是这种例句不需要，那里已经有例子。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

好啦，你很行。我只是多加几个字就要被你冷言冷语，西方人都来这套吗？还有我发觉你们西方人比不上日本人，日本人都会明确告知哪里有问题，该注意什麽。你们是不是该改进？--俠刀行 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- 其实我觉得我第一次看你编辑有点误会，那时以为是不相于的可是看错了，现在看得到你的编辑还是有关--抱歉。可是，我还觉得不需要，尤其是在小相片下面，没有空间。再说，如果要加什么usage例句，一定要注意翻译是正确的。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
没关系，我还是会原谅你--俠刀行 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- 谢谢。中文又不是我的母语，所以快地编辑的时候，我会犯错。。。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

where's the page of aricle request for most foreign articles have?

I didn't find this kind of page(Notice:it'n not this wikipedia:article request).In Chinese wikipedia,they have it called 最多語言版本的待撰條目.But I didn't still get a right place,so where's article request which most foreign versions have and english don't?

中文：我没找到这种页面(注意不是这页条目请求)。在中文维基，他们有这个叫最多語言版本的待撰条目。但我还是没有到正确的地方，所以多外语版欠缺英语的条目请求在哪里呢？--俠刀行 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- 是 Wikipedia:Most wanted articles 吗？那是有最多链入页的文章。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  - oops, 不是那个。我去打听一下： Wikipedia talk:Most wanted articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    - Maybe you should ask on Wikipedia:Questions,it would be good there.中文：也许你应该在问题页面发问，会好一点。--俠刀行 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Classifier

I am a cantonese .I not sure if the example gave an accurate account of what the text is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if i've made a mistake.in my opinion,if i want to say:There are clouds in the sky,I would say"天空上有一片雲"(in fact, the chinese version is meaning that there is a cloud in the sky at that moment.).the sentence ”天空一片雲” is not a complete sentence at all,in english,it is something just like "the sky(NOUN) clouds(NOUN)."verb and connectionis are absence in this case.moreover,the word"片"is describing the noun"cloud" but no sky.if we want to describe the word "sky".we could definitely use the word"片",but not in this case.that"s just my opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from 222.166.160.129 has been disabled by Spellcast for the following reason(s):

"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

BUT WHY THEY SEND ME SUCH A MSG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the IP address User talk:222.166.160.129, not your account User talk:小雨點. If you couldn't edit, that means you were not signed in. The fact that you can leave a message on my page right now means your account is not blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly one of the most confused part of chinese usage.The sentence 天空突然一片辽阔 is, in fact,should be wirite as 天空突然變得一片辽阔, but for better pronouncing reason or in informal case like lyric ,we can leave it out.of course,this is just exceptional case.no matter in daily life, or formal writing,it is better for us to write 天空突然變得一片辽阔. 小雨點 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to challenge you. in fact,I am interested in discussing this topic BUT now is almost 3:30am...... maybe you or I mess up sth as i cannot totally agree with you.but you're right as that's not the main argument .perhaps we can continue in discussing this topic later on because i really doubt if the number+classifier (一片) phrase is being used after the noun and expressing "the entire" (整个).小雨點 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't pay attention to that blog,sorry.中文：我没注意到那个部落客，抱歉。--俠刀行 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

没事 :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

我的英语

我英语是en-0，你相信吗？--俠刀行 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

我觉得最好en-1,因为你也可以用基本的英语交流。。。还有，你大概是zh（不zh-3），中文是你的母语吧？rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

不是母语，中文是我的第一外语。--俠刀行 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't change the common English spelling of names

You have recently systematically changed Turfan to Turpan in all Wikipedia pages. This kind of systematic change is quite inappropriate. First of all, Turfan is more common in English texts (you can search on Google Books to check it). Secondly, when 2 spellings are common in English texts, a systematic change of one spelling to the other one (without any prior consensus) is quite wrong. Alefbe (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I did search Google books, news, and web; there are slightly more Turfans on books and web, slightly more Turpans on news. In any case, it's all relatively close, and the difference is not large enough to strongly suggest that one spelling or another is "right"; furthermore, google searching is an inexact science anyway, a google result can't be used as damning evidence one way or another unless the difference is huge. Ultimately, the trump card is that Turpan is the native name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you moved it again. How many times does the definition of "edit warring" need to be explained to you? If you think your title is better and you can get consensus for it, post a request for comment or a request at WP:3O. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

Thanks! I originally thought you were wishing me a happy birthday birthday, but then I realized that it was October, not December. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The last word

I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator. I think it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you, and I think you would do well to remove it. ÷seresin 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. But the editor was being deliberately disruptive—have you read the messages there? I tried three times to direct him to an appropriate forum where he could have a discussion, and he appears to have not even read a word that I wrote. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Misbehavior by another is not license to do the same. As for the conflict itself, I note that you just used administrative rollback to revert his reverts, and then you blocked him—you used your administrative tools in a conflict dispute. That is, generously, wildly inappropriate. But I imagine ANI will tell you the same thing, so I will just let the report take its course. ÷seresin 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I already explained my recent block at ANI. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the way, I don't know what you mean by "administrative rollback"—I had rollback long before I was an admin. The only admin tool there I used was the block. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's difficult to read the resolution of this discussion, but there may be a rate limit for non-admin rollback. Admin rollback is not rate-limited. Gimmetrow 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is; before I was an admin I once rolled back over 1,000 edits (caused by a malfunctioning bot) in a couple minutes. Or if non-admin rollback does have a rate limit, it is much higher than 10 per minute.

And in any case, it's not like I intentionally chose to use admin rollback instead of non-admin rollback. I don't sit there thinking, "now next time I use rollback, which kind should I use?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there's no choice, but that would be the one functional difference I can think of, if it still exists. Gimmetrow 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi map

This one seems easier to rip/reproduce than the one you suggested. Is everything we need on it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has everything. I can't find "Shanxi Alley" (whatever that is) but I can ask a Uyghur friend to take a look at it; anyway, I think this map should be fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First draft

version #3 -- cropped, moved legend, 1km-scale added

Picked some random landmarks. I'm assuming "Lu" means "Street"... I'll write that in English. Any other major landmarks needed? Also, I can't find the infamous "Grand Bazaar"...

Yep, Lu is street :). Jie and Dao also mean street, if you come across them; so are words like Xilu, Nanlu, Beilu, and Donglu ("west ___ road", "south ___ road", etc.). The "Grand Bazaar" has several different names, so I'll look around the map and see if I can spot it; if not, I'll ask a Uyghur friend this week.

And by the way, the svg looks awesome so far! Thanks for working on it, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Haven't found Grand Bazaar yet. But People's Square (also mentioned in the article) is in the middle, straight east of Renmin Park. It's Renmin Square (Renmin = People). Other worthwhile things to mark would be Xinjiang University (lower right...hey, I might even be there next summer!) and Urumqi Railway Station (lower left). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I bet it's the thing labelled "Erdaoqiao Store" (at the bottom of the orange road). If my memory serves me correctly, the Grand Bazaar and Erdaoqiao are two big buildings in roughly the same area. They're both big shopping centers with lots of booths (similar to Silk Street in Beijing) so the label "Erdaoqiao Store" would make sense. But don't quote me on that; I'll ask someone for clarification tomorrow. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The other things we need to find are Longquan Lu, Daximen and Xiaoximen (literally, "Big West Gate" and "Little West Gate"), and Shanxi Alley. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would we all prefer "Renmin Park" or "People's Park"? I'm not sure how WP:COMMONNAME would work here, e.g. the square in commercial Beijing is known as "People's Square", etc. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think "People's" is better...road names are a little tougher ("Jiefang Road" or "Liberation Road"? sometimes English translations of the translate-able street names sound funny... I always preferred "Chang'an Jie", for example, over "Avenue of Eternal Peace", or the laughable "Long Peace Street"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that is "People's Square" mentioned in the ariticle. Ah! I was looking for it... or is there yet another one? seems like everything is "people-ing" in China... generally, I think we should pick the names from the main text. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, this People's square should be the correct one... but yep, just about every city has a "People's ___", "Worker's ____", and "Liberation ____". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And Zhongshan Road, and Zhongshan Park, not to mention People's Square (disambiguation), Nanjing Road (disambiguation)... :) -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd version

So google-maps is quite a tool. Still no clue where Shanxi Alley is, but it mentions "a hospital" -- only hospital around is the Regional Hospital on the map; Nanmen area is right there, can't be far... Anything mentioned in article is in blue, other major roads are in lightgray... Legend uses 3 icons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks great. The only minor thing is, I don't see Longquan Road on the source map (although this other map has a Longquan Hotel right around where you put Longquan Road).

Also, would it be much work to upload a separate version without the stars and legend? A blank version like that might be useful in the Urumqi article or as a template for other unrest articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Longquan is clearly marked in google maps, that's where I got it... no problem deleting the legend and all that once we're done with this one... still trying to get a hold of Shanxi and some minor stuff mentioned. Especially the "gates"... google-maps can't find them... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see it now. It looks like we were right to assume that the Grand Bazaar is near Erdaoqiao; google maps has a Xinjiang Guoji Dabaza, which is the Grand Bazaar (lit. Xinjiang International Big Bazaar.... apparently Urumqians often call it the "da bazaar", which is mixing Chinese--da = grand, with Uyghur bazaar...in pure Uyghur it's chong bazaar, but da bazaar just sounds so much funnier). Zoomed in to here, you can see Erdaqiao (Döngkövrük) on Jiefang Rd., with the Grand Bazaar just east of it on Heping Rd. ("South Peace Rd.").

The 'gates' might have different names on Google maps...or they might just not be there.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What if, for this article, you cut off the top half of the map (since most of the events seem to have occurred in the lower right, at least according to the only sources we have available) and stick the legend on the lower left (below the railway station)? That might allow for a closer view of the relevant portion of the map, and prevent things from being so crammed in the thumbnail view. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, also, the legend (or one of the corners) should probably include a scale, like the source map does. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

#3

cropped it, makes sense...legend moved, 1km-scale added Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think w're done....it could get too crowded if more is added.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

generic

...and here's the generic map.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Aahh... This is quite the confusing section to navigate... I'm assuming that version up there with the flames and stars is the current version. There is one spelling error Remin --> Renmin on the road. "Lu" is often translated as "Road" while "Jie" is often translated as "Street". "Dadao" is "Avenue", but sometimes "Lu" is also translated as "Avenue". For the labels box, the "Urumqi" is too stretched... in my opinion, and looks a bit awkward... other than than I can't see anything else. Colipon+(Talk) 12:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Darn, always *some* slippage... I'm at the wrong machine right now, gimme ~10 hours or so to change Remin to Renmin; and yeah, the legend's kinda squeezed. I musta been tired last night... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: possible block

Hi Rjanag; I have requested a block of this account [47] for numerous spam-like and copyright violation edits. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His edits are not vandalism per se, so he can't be blocked through AIV. But I'm about to report him to ANI. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your all being evicted. wat 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, now we're done for. You got us good, S-J-S-F-M-W. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz

Hi! Please have a look at Corsican language. Could you help? Thank you!--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits

Were DYK credits given for this diff?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting to it now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

Hi Rjanag. Since we have established that the new article about Nicholas Beale that someone posted explicitly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, I wonder if you could be kind enough to undelete it so that hopefull other editors can get it into a reasonable shape. many thanks. NBeale (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When did we "establish" that it doesn't meet the criteria? I already told you reasons it does, and you haven't listened. You think it doesn't meet the criteria, that doesn't mean you have convinced anyone else. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does not meet g4 which explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and is the basis on which you deleted it. Even though you are an admin you are not entitled to speedy delete (let alone lock) pages that you don't like. You are also not allowed to speedy delete an article because of percieved lack of notability. Please either point to a policy which entitiles you to delete and lock this article, or undelete it. Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review is thataway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag - and thanks for the notification that Nicholas Beale had yet again been recreated. I was just composing my cogent and pithy comments when it was speedied! Never mind - I'll save my comments for the next attempt to turn Wikipedia into an extension of Nicholas Beale's blog. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Rjanag. Because repeated promotion has occurred at Nicholas Beale for more than two years, could you apply indefinite create protection to Nicholas Beale and Nicholas beale. After 4 AfDs, this biography clearly does not belong on Wikipedia. Indefinite salting would force those who wish to repost this article to bring the article to DRV. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see my message because this section is in the middle of the page? Cunard (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed it. I'll re-apply indef protection to Nicholas Beale; I had indef salted it when I deleted it, but after it was restored and re-deleted I only salted it for a year (don't remember why). There's probably no harm in salting it indefinitely and making whoever re-writes it apply to an admin before being able to put it back in mainspace. Nicholas beale is already indef salted, I think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for indef protecting Nicholas Beale. According the protection log, you only salted Nicholas beale for one year, though. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Should be fixed now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an ludicrous abuse of your privileges as an admin, and not at all in line with what was decided in the (deeply flawed) 1h15min deletion "debate". Can you find a single instance of anyone else who has written a notable book, been a featured speaker at the RS, RI, AAAS etc.. and described by a Nobel Laureate as having an "outstanding reputation" being AfDd, let alone blocked? Or indeed point to any policy which entitles you to do this? NBeale (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm ludicrous. The self-obsessed Nicholas Beale is perfectly humble and excellent.

For the millionth time, Nick, if you disagree with the deletion of your precious article, deletion review is thataway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Policy is here WP:SALT Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Question: The notice that comes up when you try to create the page refers to User talk:Nicholas Beale. I assume that should be User talk:NBeale. Could one of you admin types correct it, for clarity and absolute correctness? Thanks! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was actually supposed to link to t his section (User talk:Rjanag#Nicholas Beale). I can't directly change it, but I can add lines to the protection log (essentially by changing the protection settings and then changing them back). Since this section will eventually be in my talk archives, I'll link to the archive page instead of directly here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Monguor

I added --LLTimes (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Christianity coordinator elections

Unfortunately, the voting is by simple approval only, so no negative votes are going to get counted in any event. Regarding any conduct issues, there have been others who became coordinators of projects whose conduct was, well, unimpressive in some regards, who grew while coordinators and became editors that I think are now fairly universally regarded. Girolamo at the Films project comes to mind. And I've been known to be fairly criticized on more occasions than I really like thinking about as well, even as an admin. I think it might be best if you moved the comment onto the talk page. I'm not sure if any non-socks who got enough votes has ever been disqualified in an election, but I doubt it. (I think there was something like that in the Film project once though). Right now, personally, I'd probably take Charlie Manson if he didn't drool over the porn on the computer right now, because the group is big and it needs as much help as possible. But I did read your concerns and do appreciate them. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I don't really have a vested interest in your project and it's no skin off my back if NBeale gets elected. But I wanted to warn you guys that he's a disruptive _{(off-wiki canvassing is disruptive)} and self-serving _(COI) editor who doesn't even understand basic Wikipedia policies _{(not knowing what edit warring means even though it's in bold at WP:EW, and not knowing what constitutes a personal attack)}. If that's the kind of person you want as your coordinator, that's fine with me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. You have been on Wikipedia for 1 year 1 month & 25 days, and seem to me to have the impatience of youth :-) Nobody's perfect: you might want to think about WP:BITE and WP:NPA ("X has occasionally done something which I think is Y" is not the same as "X is Y"). And whether the incident you mention is really an WP:EW is highly debatable (an anon editor reverts 3 times, in 2 cases I try to meet his/her objections). If we seek to drive out any editor who has a blog and who actually knows some of the people we are writing about we will not improve wikipedia. Already the number of editors is apparently declning, and this may be due to over-aggressive behaviour. Let's encourage participation and getting involved rather than harassing people. NBeale (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the number of selfish and self-promotional editors declines, that's actually good for Wikipedia. Let's hope more of them abandon the project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript link

Hi! I noticed you reverted my link to the Commons page for the Voynich Manuscript, noting that it was "already linked prominently". That is not correct. The Commons category at [48] is linked to (which contains the manuscript in arbitrary order, and some other files), not the Commons page at [49], which has the manuscript only, with all the pages in proper order. I'll leave it to you to decide how to link best, but IMO the article shouldn't link to the category at all but to the page instead. Sadly, we don't have template to do this, at least no to my knowledge. -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The category has a bold link on the top going to the page. If you think it's better to link directly, you can remove the category link and replace it with the page link; I don't think it's necessary to link to both. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiBirthday

Thanks for the notice! It is interesting to remember when it all started for me editing here with a user name. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Video

Can you play the video at User:RoyDickson/Sandbox? RoyDickson appears to be having some difficulty playing the video and I wanted to make sure that I'm not the only one who can play it. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

K, thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz edit warring

Dear Rjanag, would you mind looking into this, or give some advice?

I edit w/ this edit sum.: [50]
Partial revert from Radeksz w/ this edit sum.: [51]
I revert w/ this edit sum: [52]
Radeksz concedes my point w/ this telling edit sum., but reverts anyway: [53]

The edit summaries are quite telling. In the fourth diff, neither rebutting nor bothering to compromise by taking into account my point (which his edit summary forthrightly acknowledges), Radeksz simply reverts me, of course leaving in the completely false claim that the Soviets "openly" supported the Nazi invasion. I can obviously take out "openly" but I think that the claim that the USSR supported the Nazi invasion of Poland is equivocation; the USSR simply went along with the invasion due to its own geopolitical interests.

This looks like a case of trigger-happy reverting. Radeksz may claim that the USSR supported the invasion, but providing a source would be nice. Actually taking out "openly" per his own concession edit summary 4 would have been a compromise.

I'd gladly do a third revert, but I find Radeksz's behavior inappropriate enough, you've warned me that even doing one or two reverts can be considered edit warring, and I'm currently watched by ArbCom due to Radeksz' edit warring and team-tagging with Martintg and friends (your contributions as a party in this case, WP:EEML, are welcome). I'd take this to talk, but it seems that Radeksz is willing to concede my point even as he trigger-happily reverts me, and it's patently obvious that Radeksz is reverting for the heck of it. I think Radeksz' work here clearly falls under edit warring without breaching 3RR. As a team member who follows around my edits with a team of friendly buddies all over Wiki, he constantly reverts me and I'm sick of it. In this case, he should at least be given a warning to attempt compromise sometime, instead of blindly reverting to a version he prefers but admits isn't properly written.

This is not only revert-warring; this falls under WP:GAME examples as "stonewalling" and "bad faith negotiating."

I'd very much appreciate seeing your thoughts on this tango.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(PasswordUsername)

I don't really see how the quote there supports the claim that the USSR "openly supported" anything, but I'm not familiar with this part of history so who knows.

More importantly, though, why didn't you discuss this at the article talk page, or with Radeksz, before coming to me? This is precisely the kind of thing that can be worked out through discussion; from what I can tell, one of the main reasons Wikipedia's articles on this topic are so bad is because everyone involved is more interested in ratting one another out than in actually working on the article. To be perfectly frank, from an editor's standpoint I have no reason to care about any of you guys or what happens to you; as an editor, all I really care about is the article quality, and neither of you are doing it any favors by being at each other's throats. A little discussion before running to admins would go a long way, I think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your claim that Radeksz is wikihounding you... well, you haven't provided me diffs from any other articles, and I'm not really interested in them anyway; this is not a conflict I wish to get involved in. There's already an ArbCom case open to address it. My lack of interest in investigating Radeksz' "wikihounding" doesn't mean I approve of it or am taking sides—you already know what my opinion of Martintg is—it just means that this is not my thing to get involved in. For the specific article disagreement you described above, I've already said how to deal with it (discussion); for the long-term issues of hounding or gaming, those are best dealt with by ArbCom and not by me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss with Radeksz because he is stonewalling; in this diff [54], it's evident that in the interests of furthering an edit war battleground he blindly reinserts his favored WP:OR version containing the claim of "open" support, while in the summary telling me to remove this if I want. (Completely unreasonable - apparently an attempt to get me to revert a third time in order to convince people of how warlike I'm behaving.) I've tried dealing with him elsewhere, but it's a fruitless endeavor. What Radeksz writes is what he wants to see, not what the sources say or what a compromise would have.

As far as the noxious nature of these Eastern Europe disputes, I completely understand your lack of will as to dealing with this – going as far as you have in attempting to deal with things in the past is far more than what most admins would have tried to do. Thanks anyway. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please have a careful look at the edits:

PU/AN first edit: I edit w/ this edit sum - [55]; this is actually a completely legit edit, aside from the edit summary, in that at some point somehow a block of text (including a quote) got removed from the article (making a sentence a fragment) and PU/AN is taking out the sentence which was introducing the quote.

My first edit: [56] Ok, PU/AN was right, so I went back, found the text that was removed and put it back in. What's wrong with this edit?

PU/AN second edit: [57]. PU/AN's edit summary: It can be said the USSR supported the German invasion due to the M-R secret protocol, but that ït supported the German invasion "openly" is WP:OR / false. They didn't announce "we approve." So. PU/AN says It can be said the USSR supported the German invasion, but that it cannot be said that it supported the German invasion "openly". Ok, I'm fine with that. Hence my last edit:

My second edit: [58] in which I completely agree with PU/AN - I remove the word "openly" since it doesn't seem to belong and restore the original quote per his statement that "It can be said the USSR supported the German invasion due to the M-R secret protocol".

So what the hey is PU/AN's problem with my edits here, since I'm agreeing with him??? Is it because my edits followed his edits? Speaking of "wiki-hounding" - I've had this article on my watchlist since like 2004, before PU was even on Wikipedia and especially before PU decided to become AN - more likely he looked up my past edits and decided to "send a message". This is really trying to make a big deal out of nothing just to make accusations against somebody.radek (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, looking at it again I see that I did make a mistake - I meant to put in the text without the word "openly", which I did, but somehow I didn't remove the same text w/ the word "openly" in it. Then I left home for a few hours to run some errands. I see that you corrected my mistake - thanks! Still, PU/AN trying to milk this as some kind of "GAMEing" or "EDIT WARRING" or whatever is pretty freakin' pathetic - especially since I was trying to agree with him.radek (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rjanag#Nicholas Beale

Please see my comments at User talk:Rjanag#Nicholas Beale. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Not One Less"

The article looks fine to me. It's a great improvement, since it is very hard to find about 1999 film; moreover a chinese film. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. But, to be honest, I didn't write many film articles. What inspired you to ask me? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 08:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Idiot

Idiot and maniac, what makes you think that I am the University of Missouri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.156 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the reversion of my reference to Rodney King's 13 convictions.

You claimed that I am the University. All this is obvious anyway, before I said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.156 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstand why he used the term WP:SPS when reverting the reference you added. He was not suggesting that you personally wrote it, just that it was self-published by the writer. Please don't refer to other contributors as "idiots". –xeno^talk 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The 13 crimes took place in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.156 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things happen in public, that doesn't mean we accept self-published sources to reference them. –xeno^talk 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin candidate

I'm considering opening an RFA, and wanted to know whether you think I'll be a viable admin candidate. I would appreciate any and all feedback!Smallman12q (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Malice in wikiland

Hi Rjanag - you might be amused by this! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would've thought Nicholas would've fared better going to DRV as he has been told multiple times. There isn't any malice here, just an enforcement of the rules. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, "student politician"... no idea where he pulled that from, but it tickles me.

This kind of behavior from a grown man and supposedly an important academic figure is really immature. But oh well, at least he's doing his whining off-wiki instead of on. Although, if we suddenly see a "new user" creating yet another article about Beale, it wouldn't be surprising if it's a meatpuppet from his blog. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Academic freedom!

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for cleaning up the non-neutral POV in the lead paragraph of Academic freedom. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(The non-neutral commentary had been introduced more than 100 revisions ago, before May 2008.)

Thanks! That lede sure was an eyesore. (Great username, by the way!) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was astonished to see how long that eyesore had been there.

And yes, I get all sorts of commentary on my user name. :) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Arab people

Hello, last time I made more than 3 changes to one page, you blocked me. Now there's this totally biased opinion going on at Arab people, wherein some users are deleting my sources and references, are adding sources and references that have nothing to do with the subject of the debate (aka. how many of the Egyptian people are considered Arabs), and are instead adding sources that are not scientific and that do not bear any credibility. I already discussed this on the talk page. I made 2 different changes to the page (different, not the same), but I do not want to make a 3rd change to avoid what happened last time. What do you suggest I should be doing in this case? Thank you. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to be away from my computer most of the day and I don't know if I'll have a chance to look at this soon enough. If it's urgent, you might want to check with another editor. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

pics'n stuff

Someone insists on inserting pictures of the July 2009 demonstrations (Berlin/Washington) into East Turkestan independence movement. Neither the English nor the German posters/flyers say anything about "independence." Is there any indication that the people in the pictures were actually demonstrating for "independence"? Is there proof?... I think it's very dubious and takes up too much space in that short section. But I'm sick of arguing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating obstructive user

Hi Rjanag, A month ago you said on my talk page that if a particular user named Liam became trouble again to let you know. I said I would keep watch. Now he has definitely returned with a vengeance at Talk Meher Baba

An extensive section by user Hoverfish is there where he has been doing his own investigation of sockpuppetrty by the user. Here is just one small example:

See here. Now read below.

I'm on the Baba fringe too, but do check out this article a few times a year. Why not a bigger section on Sanskaras Im wondering? Johnathon --203.26.122.12 (talk)

The user has a confirmed (by admin) history of sockpuppetry and even admits to it proudly in the discussion. I left a post on the Discussion page that I would see if an admin could help. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi from me too Rjanag. Well, it is draining my energy all right, though I could simply disregard him, but I think then he would create more problems, so I try to keep him somewhat in check. I think he is using the talk page like social networking somehow, I am not sure how much is permissible or where there is a clear limit, but I keep feeling SOME rule should be there to put an end to it, hopefully. I know that's a lot of literature to offer you, but it gives an idea... Talk:Meher_Baba#The_Brendan132_incident Thanks for your time anyway. Hoverfish Talk 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message is very lacking in specifics. You want me to do something about him, but don't even say how he's making trouble—you just say "look at the talk page". Sorry, but I'm a bit busy the next couple days and don't have time to look at this. If the issue is that Liam is operating sockpuppets, please use WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Sockpuppet investigations. But if you post a message looking for help, make sure you actually explain the problem (as briefly as possible), because you're not going to get help if no one knows what you're talking about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Next Eleven Issue

I humbly ask you, if the user "softjuice" is a rightful and a credible on his contributions in the "Next Eleven." The Philippines is already a NIC, why should he/she degrade it into the Developing Country Level. Is that an offense already? "I have asked you because you're the only one I know that can help it through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoted Scientist (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about this economic stuff. Try Talk:Next Eleven or looking for other users who have contributions in macroeconomics-related articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Alefbe

This person (Alefbe) is removing properly quoted statements from the 16th century historian Firishta and by known authors of books. [59] Alefbe doesn't believe the information because the information doesn't satisfy his POV. Thank you!--119.73.4.133 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He/she has now started edit-war. [60] Can you please revert his last edit. Thanks--119.73.4.133 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If Alefbe is edit warring, you can report him at WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring. Or, better yet, try having a discussion at Talk:Amir Kror Suri.

Coming here asking me to revert for you is totally inappropriate, and would be meatpuppetry. Don't think that just because I've blocked Alefbe before I'm suddenly going to do whatever you ask. Your editing is just as inappropriate as his. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He's removing sourced information and refusing to discuss anything. I just found your name in his talk so I thought you may tell him to behave. Why do you say my editing is inappropiate? I spent many hours trying to help cleanup and expand an article (Amir Kror Suri) that looked terrible and awaful. I've added very helpful information so whoever later tries to edit will have a much more better idea how to add information. Like I said my intention was to make the article look representable, I'm not pushing POV. But he removed all the info and said these are 2 different people or something like that. I'm trying to help but he's trying to destroy my work. This is not how humans suppose to work with one another.--119.73.4.133 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Now all of a sudden his buddy came to revert. [61] I hate saying this but it's just only Shia editors (nobody else) who are focusing on and removing useful info from Pashtun related articles. They are trying to say that everything from Pashtuns is totally false because Pashtuns are Sunnis, they view Sunnis as people who are all going to hell.--119.73.4.133 (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again: my talk page is not the edit warring noticeboard or the administrator's noticeboard. I have already directed you to the appropriate places to resolve this dispute. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Could you tell me how to delete this file? File:Psyren-char.jpg Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

After a week or two it will be deleted by an administrator if the discussion you started there has a consensus to delete. If before then the image's uploader agrees to have it deleted, just let me know (and give a link to the message where he says it's ok to delete it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA keyboard input

Rjanag, normally I would agree that comments about Wikipedia editing belong in the manuals and not the articles. However, I refer you to Wikipedia:Help desk#More on IPA tone. In this case, I don't think a small comment in a list of resources in a section at the end of an article that is specifically about "Keyboard Input" would be harmful. On the contrary, it would be extremely helpful. If you disagree again, I will accept and won't argue further. I will also include a link from the IPA article to Wikipedia's IPA manual for similar reasons. I hope these resources in the appendices to the article will help others avoid the frustration I have had.--seberle (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:EmilJ#IPA keyboard input. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the AfD notice on The Shells, even though our views are opposed. I appreciate that. - Draeco (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

Article deletion issue

Thanks for your note on my page, Rjanag. Feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two? The page needs cooling down. Tony (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

Great, thanks for the correction. I had simply grabbed to much of the text in my external editor (UltraEdit), glad you fixed the messed-up characters! Chevy1948 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Assister

Soigneusement, je me demande: Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire ici? --Tenmei (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Je comprends pas cette question. «ici» c'est-à-dire sur Wikipédia? Est-ce qu'il y'a de probleme? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you adding policy shortcuts (like this) to talkpage sections? They don't belong—those templates are for indicating when a given shortcut redirects to the page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag -- ~~In light of your comment and Historiographer's reply at User talk:Historiographer#Edit warring again, I posted a cautiously non-specific, unrevealing, neutral ping.~~

I did anticipate that you were likely to check my recent contributions
See also Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa#Measured response to confrontational strategy

I did not expect that shortcut boxes could be construed as "disruptive tagging." Rather, I construed the posting of these neutral policy links as a non-confrontational tool for signaling policies with mitigating potential.

I added shortcut link boxes to the policy pages which I thought were arguably relevant and helpful. In the past, I used this as a communication device at Talk:Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop where it was not as effective as I would have wanted. However, it is worth noting that this tactic was not considered inappropriate or wrong in those venues.

I believed that this was arguably useful in identifying common ground. The discussion threads were mired in a Gordian Knot of cross-purposes and complicated apples and oranges issues. I thought this would help, not hurt.

I believed these mini-infoboxes would be useful in ameliorating conflict with Historiographer or any other editor who announces that expressive and receptive English language skills present a potential complication.

Compare diff 15:14, 24 September 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (124,595 bytes) (→Established English spelling: adding shortcut box -- WP:NC-KO) at Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa#Burden#Established English spelling

Thank you ~~for your help in minimizing adverse consequences from a possible mis-step. I have no interest in making anything worse.~~ --Tenmei (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the {{shortcut}} template is for. That template is for placing on policy pages, guidelines, and essays, to show what links redirect to them. See, for example, the usage here and here. They are not "mini-infoboxes". The guidelines for their usage are clearly documented at Template:Shortcut#Usage and Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link boxes.

As for the reason you are posting here at all, I have no idea. You just showed up at my talk page, giving no background, no link to anything, and no explanation at all of why you're here or what you want. If there is something you are actually asking for, I would appreciate it if you could communicate clearly instead of just showing up and leaving incomprehensible messages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag -- I have retracted the text above by striking it out except for the words "thank you" which I have emphasized with bold.

When you asked the question "why?" above, I didn't realize that the question was a rhetorical. I now see that no explanation was wanted. I did not guess that posting shortcuts might be perceived as controversial or disruptive. In your opinion, I was wrong.

On further review of Template:Shortcut#Usage and Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link boxes, I don't draw the inference of disruption or misuse; but I will be guided by your opinion in future. Thank you for a lesson learned the hard way. --Tenmei (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you're not reading it carefully: "These templates inform about the shortcuts available to the page they are on" (emphasis added). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus Always to Tyrants (album) DYK

Hello, thanks for your work on the DYK. I just wanted to make a correction for a hook here. Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_October_17. I left specific comments there (currently 3rd hook down). Sorry for any confusion. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYKBot update cycle problems

Hi there Rjanag. The DYK bot seems to believe it is on a 6 hour cycle after Gatoclass changed it to 8 hours and posted a warning to AN that the update is overdue and the template shows the same warning. Aforementioned Gatoclass suggested I should turn to you for help since you have programming skills. Do you think you can do something about those problems? :-) Regards So Why 12:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with DYKAdminBot (or Wikipedia bots in general). User:Shubinator has more experience with this, I'll ping him about it. The bot's operator is User:Nixeagle (and used to be User:Ameliorate!), but both editors are not very active anymore. (Although Ameliorate! might be at least checking his watchlist, as he made an edit today; if you send him a message he might see it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamal updated the template a few hours ago, so that's taken care of. Unfortunately it looks like the AN warning is hardcoded to trigger at 5 hours after the last update, so it would take someone with access to the code to change it. The warning isn't completely wrong though... the 1 should be changed to 3, and the bot operator should be changed to Nixeagle, but the gist is right. Shubinator (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment to your Comment

I am looking for advice first and foremost. I have done extensive start up pages in the past only to have them deleted simply because it is one persons viewpoint. All the people or companies that I write about I have spent quality time via face to face interaction. I don't sit at home and critique those from afar. So now I will start in stages with the page and build it up so to avoid being "red flagged" by guys like you. I have noticed hundreds of pages on this site that are not finished that have been up for quite some time. How about purging those pages from the system or correcting them? Understand, I am looking for advice, please help me not deter my situation. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionModelEditor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the advice. I am learning, please be patient. Thank you very much! FashionModelEditor (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)FashionModelEditor

sorry

Sorry. My mistake. Please take a call with how you want to deal with Nevill's comments; I have nothing to say. Alinovic (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Khachkar page locked?

Hello, you are a random admin I am requesting assistance from. Could you please check article 'Khachkar' and see if it has a lock left on it - i can't edit it. The page is connected with the controversial Nagorno-Karabakh War family of articles. Thankyou for any help that you can give. --maxrspct ping me 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be fully protected until March 2010. If there's an edit you'd like to make, you can suggest it at the talk page by leaving a new message with an explanation of the change you'd like to make, as well as a copy of the {{editprotected}} template at the top of the message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your prompt help. Shouldn't there be a template at the top of the actual article page? -- maxrspct ping me 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Added. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gleich

Greetings, you removed a "misleading link' at Jonathan Gleich I was trying to explain the word "Masticator" in the title.
Would it be more acceptable with you if I listed it as Chronic Masticator ?

Thanks

Lscappel (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There's not really any need to. We generally don't link common words (WP:OVERLINK), and linking the whole title makes it look as if the book has a Wikipedia article about it, which it doesn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Lscappel (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese

Severely needs copyediting and referencing. May be of interest to you. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaborate together?

I would like to offer you to collaborate with me in a project (literally a film article improvement in sub-page). I chose you since your Not One Less was damn perfect. I chose a film to be improved, Spirited Away. I looking for a good answer. Sincerely, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help out, although I may not be able to do much more than copyediting. I'm leaving in less than 24 hours for a conference and I'll be away for several days, but after that I'll get my hands on a copy of the movie and watch it, and try to take a closer look at the article. Do you have any more information on what specific improvements you plan to make? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I do. I'm planning to improve all the sections; Production, Release, Reception, Cast and characters, Plot and all. We can take WP:FA articles as inspiration, like The Simpsons Movie since it's an computer-animated film too. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 07:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, so, we're together now? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot

In my opinion, it's time to ask for a bot trial run. There may be unknown issues, but the template has already been deprecated, and the bot isn't making substantive changes. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to ZhBot? I've never done an BRFA before and I kind of just assumed I was supposed to wait until someone from BAG responded. If you think it's appropriate, though, I guess I could send a message/nudge to one of them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a BAG member. It's just my opinion that at this point if there are unresolved issues with the bot they will show up through a trial run. The bot doesn't impact existing policy usage with the templates, you discussed the issue with other editors at the template, the bot is dealing with an already deprecated template, you're not wading into the simp/trad issue, although you know it exists, and your request has been posted for a while, so my thinking is it's time to ask for a trial run, post the trial run for evaluation and move on to the bot. Wikipedia gets sloppy with old templates. Bots that clean up this area are, imo, appropriate and useful. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your bot, by the way. I think operating bots that do finite, tedious tasks, cleaning up messes lying around, is very useful for the encyclopedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedious

This dude is beginning to get on my neves. He's been at it since July and has only one talk page contribution. Does he ever come up with reasons for his reverts and pushing? Somewhere? Could someone at least reprimand him (again) for not marking these major changes as "minor"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox 64

Can you please explain why Star Fox 64 wasn't named Starwing 64 in Europe and Australia please? As I've read on numerous occasions it was due to a request from George Lucas as Starwing sounded like Star Wars.

I'll try and dig out a notable article.--Guru Larry (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source to verify this, you can include it...speculation, however, can't be used in Wikipedia articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it was written in the Official UK Nintendo Magazine as the reason, BUT they got the whole Star Vox thing wrong, so not 100% if that would count.--Guru Larry (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What's oil spill?什麼是油外洩?

What does oil spill really mean? It must be caused by ships-sinking? and...does the oil mean Petroleum(really does?) here? Please answer in English and Chinese,thanks. I planed to create this article in Chinese.

中文：油外泄到底是什麽意思呢？一定是沉船造成的吗？那...这里的油指的是石油吗(真的是吗?)？请用中文跟英文回答，谢谢。我打算创建这文章的中文版。

--俠刀行 (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary http://www.nciku.com gives "漏油". I'm not sure how to explain it... oil does really refer to petroleum, but it's not necessary when a ship sinks, it's usually just when an oil tanker has a leak and spills lots of oil into the sea. The result of an oil spill is an oil slick (浮油).

中文（有点难讲）：网上词典http://www.nciku.com把"oil spill"翻译成“漏油“，不知道这个对不对。 “油”就指石油，可是漏油不必是船下沉的现象，而一般来说可以表示船有种漏洞而把它的石油倒往大海。。。漏油的后果（在水上漂浮的油）就叫浮油，我觉得。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So,I'll name it zh:油外泄 in Chinese,alright? 那，我就取名zh:油外泄，好吗？--俠刀行 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that should be fine. 感谢你为zh-wiki的贡献！ rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

建立完成，你把英語版連上中文吧。--俠刀行 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiBirthday

Thanks for the note. I had just realized it myself not too long before you mentioned it. It looks like you just celebrated your first year about two months ago, so belated congratulations to you, too. Here's to many more, for both of us! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Rjanag, I have reported you at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. This is not a personal attack, and I deeply respect your other prolific contributions. But I also detested your behavior in this case, and I'm compelled to act. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the WikiBirthday greeting. — ERcheck (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I can

A little insignificant has given you a LOL ipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

^_^ A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An idiom?

I'll grant you credit for giving an authentic reply, but you gave no indication of the literal translation (which I added, having checked my French/English dictionary) of the OP's phrase. If your translation is idiomatic, in which part/s of the francophone world is it used? Your answer would be helpful on the RD thread. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

replied there rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting beyond this wikidrama

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

Re:一個都不能少

我是看過那部電影，不過你說的en:Not One Less#Themes這東西。我不明白你的意思，什麼地方有問題呢？--俠刀行 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

是第一个段落的 The version of the film released overseas ends with a series of title cards in English, the last of which reads, "Each year, poverty forces one million children in China to leave school. Through the help of donations, about 15% of these children return to school." （”每年，10万个孩子因为凭琼二离开校园。亏得人的捐赠， 15%能回学校“）。好像中国的版本没有这个。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

oops

Haven't felt this stupid in a long time now. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

re:RFA

Hi, just replied to you over at my talkpage (in case you miss it and think I am ignoring you!) - Dumelow (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikibirthday

Thanks!Autarch (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Err... Thanks, but I joined on October 30. Thanks again, though.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You indicated non-free images were in my user space.

It was my understanding that a sub-page in my user space was only for private editing before it was released to the public. Because of that, rather than try to learn all of the formatting requirements, I copied the text of a book I knew of (Da Vinci Code), so that I could replace the text with text appropriate for my book. The only other images were a photo of the Catacombs of Paris that I submitted as my work and was free to use according to Wiki rules. The other image was the book cover image for which the copyright owner emailed the license to "permissions" earlier today.

Can you tell me which images you are refferring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonsol (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The saltine cracker DYK

That AfD is a pretty clear snowball keep that's due to be closed in a few hours anyway. Why not just close the AfD? Tim Song (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem clear enough to me, given that it's remained up for 6 days. And regardless, the point is we shouldn't be promoting hooks while they're at AfD—particularly, a user should not be unilaterally "verifying" and promoting a hook while it's the subject of a pages-long discussion. (Keep in mind that Allen3 not just verified the article, but selected one of the four hooks--which already seem to have been subject to disagreement.) As for closing the AfD, no thank you, I've already seen how upset some people get when someone accidentally closes an AfD a couple hours early. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the hook is now included in both Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template talk:Did you know; I take it that's an oversight? Since the article was kept at DYK, I would suggest removing it from the latter. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Nice bot. Benjwong (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (Since it uses replace.py, the code was actually already written for me, I just run it in the command line.) Let me know if you see it doing anything wrong! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You know how to implement bots? Hmm. You think that replace-thingie could run on Navajo-wiki to replace simple apostrophes (') by glottal-stop-signs (ʼ)? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think replace.py should work on any wiki. (For what it's worth, I didn't really design this bot; the pywikipedia package is a bunch of functions that other people have already written, so I could just take advantage of them without actually having to know how bots really work behind-the-scenes ;) .) It's relatively easy to use (getting python and pywikipedia installed is probably harder than actually using it), and if you want I could help you get it set up. I think you would have to create a bot account on Navajo-wiki with your N account as the operator...not sure how their BRFA process works over there.

Another good person to talk to would be User:Kwamikagami, who does a lot of these style replacements (IPA fixes, etc.) on en-wiki, although I think he does it using AWB. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Request some personal opinion before being skinned alive by nationalists...

First of all, I'm extremely suprised that you can promote July 2009 Ürümqi riots into GA status given the controversial nature of the topic, but since you did it, and you are more familiar with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia, I would like some personal opinions on the future prospects of the articles I'm working on. The articles in question are:

Given that none of the articles above are suffering from edit wars, I have been pondering for months on whether to promote these three articles to higher status, but I'm concerned about the nature of the topic since they are Korean War topics involving battles between US and China.

My main concerns are:

Copyediting, since English is not my first language. (but recent edits seems to be working on the problem)
WP:RS propaganda clause on Chinese sources, even when Chinese sources are referenced in the right context or the Chinese side of the story has been verified on Western sources.
Unnecessary attentions may bring in edit wars between Chinese ultranationalist, US Army vets and US Marine fans...and it appears I'm the only one monitoring the contents right now.

I was thinking on consulting the US, Korean and Chinese military history task forces, but given the sensitive nature of the topic, I would perfer a neutral outsider opinion first. Thanks in advance for your feedbacks. Jim101 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jim! I think it should definitely be possible, and all these articles look well-developed. The single most important thing, I think, is having a lot of experienced editors paying attention to the article....the main reason the Urumqi riots article worked out, for example, was that there were enough of us there to shout down all the crazies when they tried to mess up the article. If it's just you against a constant stream of POV-pushers, it will be hard to hold them back without violating 3RR and other rules, plus you'll just get tired (like me, I've almost given up on the South Korea article); but if you have support, it's easier to deal with the problem editors.

For experienced editors who are knowledgeable about Korea topics and good at maintaining NPOV in controversial articles, I would suggest Baeksu, Mtd2006, and Caspian blue...if you could get any of them helping out with the articles, that would probably help a lot. For the China side of things, there's all the familiar editors from Urumqi riots... Colipon, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, etc.

Copyediting shouldn't be a big problem; just once the overall structure of the article is figured out and all the content is ready, you can invite one or two good copyeditors to read through it right before you start the GA review. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Jim101 (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, how to resolve conflicts involving the WP:RS propaganda clause on Chinese sources? Jim101 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD F8

I see now that John Anstis' portrait fitted this. However, I use Twinkle, and its wording for F8 is "bit-for-bit identical", which misled me somewhat (I was thinking it might be for people who'd uploaded it to both, for example). I also not that F8 itself just says identical - which I agree is relevant here (clearly the same painting). I don't quite know why I'm telling you this, but hey. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your latest message

I remain somewhat confused about your message. You continue to suggest that THB300K.jpg is a non-free image. I would agree it was when I first posted it. But as soon as you sent your fist message, I contacted the copyright owner who did submit to license using your own language template to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Now you claim it doesn't exist. The site suggests that if the license is not received within 7 days, it will be deleted. Yet, if it is not in the commons, that would mean it was deleted on the same day it was posted... even though the license was emailed on the same day.

Re: the article being written by me. I am no longer the owner of the book. I was the author, but I am not the owner, so suggesting it as that is not accurate. But I do see validity to the point about writing an article about a book I authored could be taken the wrong way, I will ask someone else to write the article.

You did not respond to my other question. Is a sub-page open for scrutiny by people such as yourself? I mentioned that I thought it was a practice page that was not visible to anyone else (The reason I cut and paste another article to easer the pain of my formatting ignorance. Is it my area or must I be concerned that you are looking at every step I take.

Please answer this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonsol (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. It seems that you have been helpfully reflecting on the appropriateness of some of your behaviour and been willing to apologise. I would suggest that you consider apologising to others to whom you have been un-civil, and specifically undertaking that you will not use your powers as an Admin either:

To delete articles expect in strict conformity to the WP Deletion policies (so no 5-minute deletions, no vote-stacking, and no "delete and salt" when the AfD decision was "delete")
To harrass or threaten editors with whom you are in disagreement.

Best wishes NBeale (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I owe you no apology, your participation regarding your article has been entirely inappropriate and you have repeatedly refused to actually learn the rules that you repeatedly cite incorrectly. 5-minute deletions are not a violation of any rule when they follow the criteria for speedy deletion; no "vote-stacking" ever happened and you need to stop making offensive accusations like that with no evidence; "delete and salt" is appropriate for repeatedly and disruptively re-created articles (see WP:SALT) and I had already received requests from two editors in good standing to do so. Editors who care about nothing other than promoting themselves are useless to this project and should not be welcome here. Perhaps you yourself need to do some "reflecting on the appropriateness of your behaviour" before you leave condescending messages and continue forum-shopping. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When my daughter was doing her PhD at Cambridge she was President of the BA Society at Trinity which looked after the welfare of grad students and I have some insight into how tough life can be for people in your position. I can see that it may be tempting to take out your aggression in Wikipedia. But it really isn't a good idea. There is a difference between learning a language rapidly and speaking it idiomatically. If you can't apologise when you make mistakes when you misuse your priveleges then it would be better for everyone if you were temporarily unable to make such mistakes. You know perfectly well that: (a) your initial 5-minute deletion was expliclitly against policy - if not why did you reverse it? (b) the AfD decision was "delete" not "delete and salt" - did any editor voted thus in the AfD? (c) These delete decisions are pure Wikipolitics - can you find a single example of someone who has written a N book being deleted? (d) That by contacting the people who voted in the previous AfD in the way you did but not notifying the creator of the new article or allowing any time for the article to be improved you were able to manipulate the AfD debate to get the snow close you predicted (e) that you do harrass and threaten and seek to undermine editors with whom you are in disagreement and (f) the idea that my 3,000+ edits have been about "promoting myself" is absurd.

So please reflect and see if you can find it in yourself to be civil, apologise and give these undertakings. NBeale (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For the millionth time, if you think the deletion was incorrect then take it to Deletion review, and if you think your little page shouldn't be salted then take it to Requests for unprotection. I did nothing wrong in deleting and salting it (as numerous people have told you in all the forums that you forum shopped) and am not interested in listening to you anymore. (And by the wya, if you actually looked, when I contacted people who voted in old AfDs I also contacted the people who had voted keep. The reason I didn't notify the creator was because it was clearly a one-off account that was never going to edit again and was probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.) If you care about your article, you know the places to go; if you're just here to whine to me, I'm going to delete any further messages you post. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if you really think speedily deleting that article was an abuse of admin tools, you'd better be prepared to desysop a lot more admins than just me. Kevin, Floquenbeam, and Black Kite (who have been registered wikipedians for 4, 1, and 3 years, respectively) all spoke up at that AfD to say explicitly that the article should have been speedily deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

中式英語

我看了文章後，开始乱掉了。"I want a soup(×)" 以及 "There are a lot of shoe(×)."这些句子都是错误的。那正确的说法是什麽？English:I confused after reading this article.I want a soup and There are a lot of shoe are both wrong.So what's the correct sentense?--俠刀行 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, I am currently on my friend's computer and she doesn't have Chinese installed, so only English for now!)
"There are a lot of shoe (x)" should be "There are a lot of shoes".
"I want a soup" is more difficult. Technically, soup is a mass noun and should be "I want some soup". (Just like Chinese, you have to say wo yao yidian shui(我要一点汤) or yi bei shui(一杯水), never yi ge shui(x)一个水(×).) But, the truth is different. In conversation, "a soup" can mean a cup/bowl of soup. For example, in a restaurant you can say "I want a sandwich and a soup" (which literally means, "I want a sandwich and a cup/bowl of soup". So really, "I want a soup" should not be marked incorrect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct discussion link

The discussion I meant to link to just now (and failed to) is here: Template talk:Citation/core#We should never render invalid HTML --JN 466 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, could you please undo all those changes to {{cite journal}}, etc.? The earlier discussion established a consensus that generating Harvard IDs by default broke too many pages. Certainly a change like this should not be installed without further discussion and consensus. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, changed. Intuitively, though, it seems to me that it makes more sense to set harv as the default and override it on the pages where it would be broken, rather than vice versa. Do you know if there is data on how many pages have broken HTML vs. how many pages don't? (If you prefer, we could discuss this at the template talk page instead.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like you adddressed that proposal with your comments on 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I only caught a glimpse of this (and then saw this [62] and the other reverts) but I've been working on {{cite IETF}} and harv anchors would not really be desirable when using that template as it has its own anchor generation and linking system/support for shortened footnotes. The documents it is intended for won't always work well for harv footnotes since there aren't always authors or editors, which the harv system really requires. It does support |ref=harv though in addition to its own system. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Auto purge

Ok I have a question. Here is a list of articles that use template:Chinese. I updated the template font size, but it is not changing the page contents until the next purge. Can your bot do auto purge? Such as running...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha_siu_baau

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cha_siu_baau&action=purge.

and just go down the list. I suppose it can be done outside wiki. But I don't know if your bot can do something like this. If not, is no problem. Just let me know. Benjwong (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would need special approval from WP:BRFA. But purging happens by itself after a few days (pages purge themselves when there's server downtime) so it's probably easier to just wait. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I did not think it auto purges in just a few days. Benjwong (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Zh

Hi there. I just noticed that the note about Chinese characters at the top of Kowloon Walled City, the article I'm working on, are having weird formatting issues. Just looking at recent edits to related templates, it seems like this edit of yours might be the cause. If that is indeed the case, could you please fix that as soon as possible? Thanks. —tk tk tk 08:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This appears to have fixed it. Let me know if you see any other problems, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced material and deletion

I am unsure what to make of this, and would like to know how you think about this. On East Asian age reckoning there are many "unsourced statements", however a particular user seems keen on eliminating all unsourced statements, turning a page of about 5,000 bytes into one of 1,000, to the point where there is minimal information left. The page has transformed from this to this. This said user argues here that such material is not permitted at all without sources per WP:BURDEN, full stop. I am under the belief that it was acceptable to temporarily allow an unreferenced statement provided that it can be referenced eventually, and that it doesn't violate BLP; am I mistaken? Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Zhbot

Can you make the edit summary a bit shorter please?--Tznkai (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is possible. May I ask why you want it shortened? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes my watchlist look funny. (I have Zhuangzi and Yuan Shikai on it) It's not a big deal in any case.--Tznkai (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the bot just finished its run (it was created to do one task and, 11,000 edits later, it has done it), so there should be no need anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All good then.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, my entire watchlist is full of those Zhbot summaries... I've got a lot of Chinese-related articles on it... ;P I guess it won't be such a big deal later on. :D -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of pretty, in a way ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at WT:DYK.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC/U and Admin discussion concerning you

Hello, Rjanag. As you know, a number of arbitrators suggested at the Rjanag RfA that an RfC be brought with regard to your conduct discussed at that RfA. Please be aware that in accordance with the arbitrators' suggestion a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia by your name in this list.

The RfC can be found here.

If a second user certifies the dispute within 48 hours, it will be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.

Once it has been certified and opened, editors (including those who certified the RfC) can offer comments, either by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

I invite you to respond in the Response section. You may endorse as many views as you wish. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties, inside parties, or the subject of the RfC.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been certified and opened now.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Actually I was agreeing with you, rather than the other way around. I was planning to start a talk page thread if he did it again. As for the rollback/Twinkle thing, sorry, I didn't know. I just assumed it would be the best/easiest way to say I was assuming good faith. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(sighs) I'm used to things looming over me. Thanks for the help at keeping an eye on the talk page though. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Running

Hi Rjanag. I hope all is well with you. I haven't had occasion to work with you much of late, although I always think to ask your opinion on linguistic and language related subjects (as I recall that's an area of interest and expertise for you?). Anyway, I just wanted to come by and offer some support and encouragement. Wikipedia definitely has its frustrations, but I hope everything is going well for you and that you enjoy yourself on and off-line. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CoM...it's always a pleasure getting your nudges about interesting AfDs and such. And I still try to remember your advice about going for a run ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to nudge me about running any time. It's getting so I can barely get out of my seat! Be good. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK Queue 3

Hello, Since your online right now was hoping you could move Queue 4 to Queue 3, since its been recently moved to the front page. If its a lag of the bot then nevermind. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, the bot should have cleared Queue 3 when it promoted those hooks to the front page. I'm not sure what happened there (to be honest, both of the editors who wrote the bot are semi-retired now so there's no one around who knows how it actually works). I have cleared the queue manually.

As for moving them... actually, sets of hooks don't move through the queues, but rather the bot moves through the queues (so it's a bit misleadingly named). Once a set is promoted to, say, Queue 4, it sits there and waits until the bot has cycled through to that queue...so once hooks are promoted to a queue they don't need to be moved. Just for clarification. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Just saw that it said the next update is scheduled for Queue three. Must admit I'm not aware of the workings that take place from the prep areas to the Queue. The behind the scenes of the adminstation workings. Maybe one day. Just kind of follow from the watchlist and such. Thanks again for doing that and taking the time to explain it to me. Cheers Calmer Waters 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. The bot has a counter (User:DYKadminBot/count) that tells it which queue it's supposed to be on...normally it updates this counter itself after each update (ie, after promoting queue 3 it should increment its counter to 4, so next time it'll do queue 4) and seems to have missed that too. I fixed it for now...will have to keep an eye on it in a few hours to see if it messes up again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for battlecruiser article???

Hi. Uhmm... What's [this]? I didn't to any work on the HMS Indomitable (1907) article at all. 88.90.88.107 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone made an error and listed you in the DYK credits: see here. That editor might know why he did that. But it's not a huge deal either way, I wouldn't worry about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. I'll go over there. No biggie, true, but I think the standards for getting cred. should probably be a little higher than suggesting an alt hook. :) 88.90.88.107 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree, it's not usual to give credit for that, and especially not nominator credit (which is only for the person who first brought that article to the suggestions page, and only if that person is different than the article writer). Leaving a friendly note for Jolly Janner wouldn't hurt. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just left a little note over at JJ's talk. Thanks again. 88.90.88.107 (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK

You thought this was more fun than this? Haha. Grsz¹¹ 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't notice that one (someone else promoted that hook, so I didn't see the ALTs). That would have been a good one too...I guess it's too late to change it now, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't even realize who you were! Belated congrats on earning the mop. Grsz¹¹ 05:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not One Less

Just wanted to say thanks. A lesser editor would have reverted my whole change instead of moving it forward. You're one of the good ones. Thanks. Hope you can get that article featured. -- Horkana (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your comments! Even though I don't agree about the table, I do appreciate the amount of thought you've put into the article, rather than just doing drive-by machine-like comments. That's always refreshing to see ;) . Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bug?

I was looking at one of the bot's edit on the Martin Lee article. When it converted zh-tspj without saying first=t, this is going to cause issues. Now Martin Lee has simplified chars first. It becomes difficult maybe even impossible to go back. That goes for any other article that used {{zh-tspj}}. Benjwong (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, this was intentional. The traditional/simplified ordering seemed to already be a mess across the project (i.e., a lot of articles were already using the wrong template), so we didn't want to try to program the bot to make any decisions about ordering since it's often subjective and needs a human to make the decision. Most of the templates that should have traditional first, I replaced myself (using AWB) several weeks ago, adding |first=t manually; the bot only did replacements on templates that were already simplified-first. (Note that the name of a template doesn't necessarily tell you the order of its constituents: templates like {{zh-tspj}} and {{zh-ts}} actually had simplified characters first [63][64].) I figured people watching the articles can fix the ordering manually if needed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if the order should have been reversed now. The number of articles that uses traditional first..... pretty much covers 1000 years is many more than the post 1949 articles. Benjwong (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I got AWB. I think it is possible to flip it so that traditional comes first. And anyone else can fill in the simplified chars. Something like first=s. What do you think? Benjwong (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any project-wide changes should be made without a discussion (for example, at WP:CHINESE). It's fine for you to start manually adding |first=s to templates that you think should explicitly be simplified first (such as PRC-related articles) but I won't alter the defaults without a wider community consensus. You'd probably be better off starting a discussion instead of making any changes with AWB yet, because you would have to do something like 15,000 edits (even with AWB, that takes a very long time), whereas if a community consensus is reached then I can have ZhBot add the |first=s automatically to templates that don't have it, or to templates that are in certain articles (for example, if the community came up with a list of categories for which all the member articles should be simp-first or trad-first, the bot could use those). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Was there an agreement that first=t? And I am not attacking you. I am just trying to figure out how that decision was implemented. I know your original goal was to consolidate like 10 templates in 1. Benjwong (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but like I said above, many of the existing templates already defaulted to simplified-first. Also, like I said above, I didn't change the display of any templates (except the minimal number of bot errors that people like you have found and corrected); before the bot ran I manually did the templates that needed traditional first, doing several thousand edits with AWB. (You can tell if you see my contributions summary, there is a giant spike in September.)

Side note: about consolidating 10 templates...actually, it was more like 70+ ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi! Thanks for the WikiBirthday message! Wow... three years and counting... I am so proud to be part of Wikipedia. Thanks again. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

不能使用图片 cannot use the image

我不能使用这张图用在中文维基，为什麽会这样？要如何才能在中文版使用呢？ --俠刀行 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"non-commons"的图片只能在“当地”维基使用。想要使用在中文维基，可以在中文维基再次上载，或者可以把这张搬到Commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All these complaints and puffery give me a creepy feeling. Try reading this recent NYT-article ... Seems distantly related (at least in my mind) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's something.... The problem of racism is also starting to [finally] get some attention in China, have you heard the recent uproar about Lou Jing? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting/sad. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton/Project

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

ZhBot and the lang template

ZhBot is currently replacing {{lang-zh}} with {{zh}} and the edit summary says to check the userpage. However, the userpage mentions only merging all "zh-" style templates into zh. Where was it decided to start using zh|c= across the board instead of lang-zh? Kolindigo (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm...now that I check, it does look like we didn't specifically discuss lang-zh (or lang-gb, for that matter). But in this case the change is 1) harmless, as far as I can tell, and 2) useful, for the following reasons:

{{zh}} is simply better than {{lang-zh}}, it has all the functionality of the latter and much more.
{{zh}} is shorter to type out.
Probably most importantly, having all Chinese stuff in the same template makes it easier to implement systematic changes in the future. For example, hypothetically, if we decided someday that all Chinese text should be enclosed in some extra html template, it will be much easier to do that if it all uses the same zh template, rather than a whole slew of templates.

And, while it seems like a lot of edits, this template actually seems to have been used much less than the other series of templates (zh-stp, zh-cpcy, etc.) that ZhBot replaced before—there were less than 2000 of these, compared to 15,000 or more of the others. And the text that shows up to the reader is still exactly the same. My plan, now that these replacements are done, is to redirect {{lang-zh}} to {{zh}} (more specifically, to replace its contents with {{zh | c={{{1}}} }} so that it still works if people use it. I also intend to make the same replacements for {{lang-gb}}. But if you think this is serious, I can file a second request for bot approval before doing this task. Personally, the only benefit I see in keeping the current templates is consistency with the others in Category:Multilingual support templates, but that benefit is outweighed by the others (I think), and besides that category is not exhaustive anyway, so I see no harm in having just one more language that has slightly different format. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. :) I was just wondering if a lang template had been deprecated. Kolindigo (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not One Less

Congratulations on FA for a fine article. Hope there is more to come! (You are an original writer. I appreciate that. I don't mean that you make up facts, but that you put together subject matter in a wonderfully clear way. ) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks for the notice—and, more importantly, for taking the time to give the article a look when no one else was doing so! Your input, as always, is invaluable... behind every FA is a workhorse who cleans up the silly mistakes that the original writer made! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eva Peron article

Regarding the Eva Peron article, we do not need accents over the "o" in the words "Peronism" and "Peronato." Please stop inserting accents over the "o" in image titles because that disables the images. Thank you. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are just as bad. I have been working on fixing the broken images and links, and twice now you h ave come in and done a wholesale revert. I realize that the image links and derived words should not have accents, and I am working on fixing them--unfortunately, a mess was created when an IP user removed all accents from the article for no reason, but in a way that couldn't be easily reverted. I did not add these extra accents intentionally, it happened while I was trying to repair the earlier damage using find & replace--which would not have been necessary if no one had screwed up the accents in the first place. Long story short, some things should have accents and your removals of all the accents are incorrect. Now I'm going to have to sit down and go through all of then one-by-one to fix what you and the previous IP editor have messed up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing. I'll just say thank you for cleaning up some aspects of the article, such as the citations sections. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Account

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

Birthday

Many thanks for your birthday wishes. Davshul (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Academic Community Hall

My apology regarding your bot adding the simplified title to the article. --WikiCantona (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese news

First, I'd like to thank you for your work on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. It seems I'm late to the party (good job on the GA) but that article looks positively superb for such a contested topic. It is for this reason that I would like to request your help on User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Chongqing corruption scandal (yes, when mainspaced, it will reside at 2009 Chongqing corrupting scandal instead of its current stated target). I've listed sources at User talk:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Chongqing corruption scandal, but I'm having trouble with both the formatting of the article and the decision of what information should be included. Your help would be greatly appreciated, if you have the time to spare. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the case much, although I've definitely noticed it a lot lately. These days I'm pretty busy so I'm not sure how much hardcore writing I'll be able to do, but I'll be happy to watch the page and offer input...if I find some free time I might do some writing too, but I don't want to make a solid commitment yet as I'm not sure if I would be able to go through with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'm in no rush either. Also, check your email if you haven't already. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Quote

Hi Rjanag. My query here is regarding Template:Quote. I just noticed this issue then, but previously when using Template:Quote, if you left a line between two paragraphs it, naturally, would recognise that line and leave a space separating the paragraphs. However, for some reason it is not doing this now and the text, even if split into paragraphs, merges into the one block. As you were the most recent to edit the template, I thought it would be logical to ask you if you knew how to fix this? It may not have been your edit, but I didn't notice this until now and you were the most recent to edit the template. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(editconflicted) Short answer: my recent edit is the one that has caused the problem, and I can't figure out a way to fix it yet, so I've reverted.

Long answer: Thanks for pointing this out. I removed those tags to fix a formatting error in this AfD close, where the {{quote}} template caused the archiving to be messed up. Basically, the archiving works by applying a <div style="background: [some color]"> tag to the beginning of the discussion, and a </div> tag to the end... but the quote template also has a

tag, so when the browser sees it it thinks that's the end of the background-color thing and ends the archiving. I have also noticed this problem with embedded div tags on other pages; it's kind of annoying, so I'll leave a note at WP:VP/T to see if anything can be done about it. Anyway, in this case I thought the div tags in the template were doing nothing so I removed them to fix the AfD page, but didn't realize that would create other problems. For now I've just converted the quote template in the AfD to a <blockquote></blockquote>, which will work as a quick fix for most cases, but the better solution will be to figure out how to prevent div tags from interfering with one another, so I will look into that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a pain in the butt. Hopefully a solution can be discovered in which the templates cannot interfere with each other. Anyway, thanks for (temporarily) fixing this. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

re: b-day

Thx, and happy Friday 13th to you too. - Altenmann >t 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External editing

Thanks for the heads-up on editing the source in an external editor. Is there some way to do this, however, as it's pretty difficult to find your way through pages and pages of mark-up without a search function? BarryNorton (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the page is long, I just use the search in my browser to find the specific comment I want to reply to after I click the "edit" button. If the markup is intimidating, the Wikipedia tutorial explains most of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

[65] - Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice (it looks like now we're both having the experience of people digging up ancient, and questionably relevant, diffs in current disputes...). I may not respond immediately because I'm not sure yet exactly what to say, but long story short I don't agree with Voceditenore's and Moreschi's wording of this 'principle' or their interpretation of the civility policy, so once I've sorted out my thoughts I will try to leave a comment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your birthday greeting.

Disruptive behaviors by User:Monkh Naran and others

Hi, Rjanag, if you're active, could you look into this blatant violation of WP:Talk, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA by new editors named Monkh Naran (talk · contribs) and Pertook15 (talk · contribs) as well as GenuineMongol (talk · contribs)'s gross incivility. I deleted some rant[66] that have nothing to do with the ongoing disputes on a map and content regarding 13th century Korean and Mongol relation. However, Monkh Naran (talk · contribs) reverted to include such offensive attacks including mocking ethnicity, and false labeling of "vandalism" with threats. I've been attacked by the users like this[67][68][69]. I warned them and tried to calm down[70], but well...I got this treatment.User_talk:Caspian_blue#Materials_from_User_talk:Gantuya_eng. Would you look into the situation? Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also found out an odd thing. The user appeared to support to delete the article of Mongolia during Tang rule several month ago [71] when all Mongolian editors appeared to voice out the same view at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule, and his other occasions are also similar. I think there must be off-forum or the account is an alternative one to avoid scrutiny or SPA. They disrupt Wikipedia by resorting to personal attacks and soapboxing.--Caspian blue 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Alefbe

Hi, Rjanag. This user is constantly removing the sourced information from the articles Samad Behrangi and Turko-Persian tradition without any discussion. If you check the talk pages of these articles in which i contributed the most, you'll see that there is no comment from this user. However, he/she's blindly removing information and also stalking. Regards, E104421 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ask another uninvolved administrator to look at this. I do not deal with Alefbe anymore and, frankly, I am never pleased when people come to me asking me to block their enemy just because I warned that person months ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He/she's not my enemy but a blind reverter. I came to your page just because i thought you know his/her distruptive behaviour. Anyways, i'll take your comment into account. Best, E104421 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If he's blindly reverting then use the edit warring noticeboard. In the past people have come here before thinking "oh, Rjanag has scolded Alefbe before, so Rjanag will be the perfect way for me to exact my revenge!" and I refuse to act on requests like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my request is not like that. I'm against blocking people, since they're somehow coming back. For this reason, i'm in favor of forcing them to discuss their problems with the articles. If they do so, i have enough answers for them, but how to force them, that's the problem. That's the logic behind writing to you. Regards E104421 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A message to Alefbe or to the article's talk page would be a good thing to try before seeking administrative intervention. According to your contributions history, you haven't made an attempt to contact him other than with edit summaries. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's better to contact directly rahter than the edit summaries. I'll do that next time. Thanx. E104421 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mandarian

Nope nothing is automated with the Wiki Cleaner edits. Just my mistake. Thanks for catching it. Wiki Cleaner just gives a fast list of what needs to be disammed. It's more of an assistance tool than an editing tool. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One-child policy

Hi Rjanag,

I do a fair amount of writing/editing on WP but I don't know of any page that has such a constant stream of vandals as the One-Child Policy page. Virtually all of the vandals are unregistered users, and judging by the childishness of the entries, the vast majority are juveniles.

Would it be possible to restrict editing of that article to Registered Users? Of course many of us monitor those entries now, but it's a PITA to have to deal with those edits. If it is possible to place a restriction on editing, and you know how to request or create such a restriction, then I encourage you to do so.

Thanks a lot.

--Mack2 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting it at least temporarily is definitely a good idea, given the level of vandalism; I could apply a several-months protection to it myself. Semi-protecting indefinitely, though, is a slightly bigger deal and it would probably be good to get more input before doing it—in some instances I wouldn't mind protecting indefinitely, but in this case it's a controversial article and is not even very good anyway (and I think it has some bias that would make some editors bitter anyway, although that's still not an excuse for the mostly sophomoric vandalism that takes place there). The best option might be to list it at Requests for page protection (requesting either indefinite semi-protection, or something like 3- or 6-month semi-protection) just so that a couple more eyes will see the request and be able to raise objections if there are problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the above; it looks like we were getting hit especially bad today, so I just went ahead and protected the page for 3 months. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe when the schoolboys are less bored with school, they'll lay off.--Mack2 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Yanson

What do you think? I have a feeling you're going to go with delete. But I wonder if including an author/scholar of specialized work in this field doesn't make the encyclopedia just a little bit better? I actually like that it's very short and stubby without and fluff. I don't see how it can be merged to a broader topic. And it seems like a good way to have his books be included in some fashion in our comprehensive resource. Have I lost it completely? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree with you that there is use in having articles like these (especially for if his work is cited in other articles, so there can be a bluelink in sentences like "According to Rudolf Yanson...."), but unfortunately I don't think usefulness can trump the notability criteria. The notability criteria themselves are not very good, I've come to think, but I don't think it would be right to try to tear them down from the inside by ignoring them in AfDs... I get frustrated, for example, at how WP:ATHLETE is so lax and WP:PROF, comparatively, much stricter, but making that argument during AfDs would be too much like crusading. So I think we have to go according to the current criteria until they are changed by some other means. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:GraYoshi2x#Lamest edit warring

Hello, Rjanag, I hope my message to you is not ignored this time. :-) (my feeling was a little hurt). However, I can really not come up with any suitable admin for the matter because you know both GraYoshi2 and Badagnani, and your are an active member of WP:CHINA with experiences in editing food/Chinese culture-related articles. This tendentious edit warring between them has been going on for about 7 months. Regardless of the formed consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/May_2009#Naming_convention_for_Chinese_foods_and_usages_of_Wikitionary, GraYoshi2x has been reverting to exclude the Wiktionary links even though he is the only one against the consensus. I think this long-term revert campaign is indeed spooky and disruptive.[72] (most of them are mere reverts of Badagnani's edit). I have agreed and disagreed with each of the both, but to me, GraYoshi2x wants to pick a fight, so Badagnani who has many block records to be blocked for a longer time. Would you take appropriate action; block or warning anything to stop this silliness. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the intervention to the two users. The edit warring was stopped since then, so I hope this matter is resolved.Caspian blue 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardest language

I'm bringing another problem to your attention since your specialty is in linguistic study. User named Laws dr (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) has been inserting WP:Original research to Hardest language over and over and even distorted contents from used books (he claimed he merely re-added somebody's edit). This was pointed out at here on Oct.31, but he recently added his personal opinion referenced with a chatting forum, insisting that his edit is justified. He sporadically edits Wikipedia, but as soon as his added content was deleted today, he appears. I think Law dr is a single purpose account, or alternative account with another account. Would you warn him for his repeated disruption and violations of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:RS and if possible look into the account? Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's disruptive behaviors are going nowhere; please check his/her contribution.--Caspian blue 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the helpful info on my discussion page. I didn't know the zh-cp was deprecated. I'll make use of the new Chinese: s....

--Visik (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Uyghur language

Hello. I am a native Russian speaker and linguist. What we have originally in the article is transliteration with mere elements of transcription (e.g. no vowel reduction is indicated). There is the pronouncing norm of standard Russian in Russia which roughly corresponds to Moscow speech. In this norm there are rules for vowel reduction which are in no way respected in the article. Voiced consanants always become devoiced (with few situational exceptions) at word ending. --Zumrasha (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur is different than Russian, and I am a Uyghur speaker. As for the article, the current consensus is to transcribe the underlying representations (the same as what is written in the word's spelling) rather than the pronunciation details which vary from one dialect to another. If you believe this should be changed, please start a discussion at the article's talk page.

I am traveling right now and might not be able to respond until Monday. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I really hope that when you have more time you will see that I am not at all trying to argue about the Uyghur language. I am interested in and like the language and even try to learn it a little but far be it from me to try to change anything written in the article concerning the Uyghur language before I have any solid data to support the correction. In other words I completely respect the work of all those more knowledgeable people who contibute to the article. If I find any new and proven data on the Uyghur language I will surely contribute but as of now it seems that the article is the most comprehensive one on the subject on the Internet.

The only thing I do not feel comfortable about is the way RUSSIAN words are transcribed in the table. In the said table each foreign word is given along with its native transcription and then follows the Uyghur variant of the loanword with its Uyghur transcription. I only tried to change the RUSSIAN part, i.e. the RUSSIAN transcription for the Russian words, not the Uyghur transcription of the words. And you, as far as I understand it now, think that I'm correcting the Uyghur pronunciation. Not in the least!

Because of this misunderstanding it looks like you are trying to convince me that my Russian transcription for the Russian words is wrong. Now I am not a stubborn man and I do not wish to engage in any kind of "undoing" tug-of-war. But I happen to know standard Russian as my native tongue and I have a linguistic background, so I guess I must know a little about how Russian words are transcribed in the Russian language.

I simply ask you to find some time and take a closer look at the issue. I hope this misunderstanding will soon be cleared. I am really looking forward to having a more fruitful discussion about the Uyghur language proper with you. --Zumrasha (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. You are correct; I was misreading your edits earlier. Sorry about this misunderstanding. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

为什麽我的留言被删除?

我不懂。我只是发牢骚一下，他就马上删除了。你可以告诉我原因吗？被删除的内容：[73]--俠刀行 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

因为不知道上下文是什么样的，我也不太理解。不过，看来他是觉得你的留信没有constructive、要回复的内容，所以他干脆删除了。对我来说这样有一点不礼貌，可是他有这个权利，你最好不理这件事，这不算大事，而且他就一个用户---不理他应该很容易！

此外，他给你的那个警告也没有道理，你不用着急。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

那请麻烦你帮我问他，可不可以教我英语？他似乎不理解我的意思。--俠刀行 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- 说实话，维基百科不是学英语的一个好地方。大部分的维基用户只写文章，不叫语言。。。他们可以帮你写文章可是不要提供英语课。我有一点同意给你留过信的那个User:Plutonium27: 如果你的主要目的是学英语，也许你最好找其他的网站（如http://simple.wikipedia.org）。我也是很愿意帮你做和百科有关的事，可是不会当英语老师；RadioFan好像也是这个意思。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
明白了。我也觉得维基有很多用词都非常艰深，不适合用在会话上，也许要学英语应该去其他网站。你有比较好的英语学习网站吗？最好有提升会话能力的。--俠刀行 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- 嗯，维基有很多jargon啦！再说，叫语言不是维基的目的，创造百科才是，所以许多用户不愿交语言。
- 说道教英语的网站。。。对我来说，网上学习不是个好办法，尤其是如果你要学会话英语的话。最好跟人直接交流。我知道在中国可能没有很多机会上有效的课程等等，可是如果你在大城市的话，外国人很多。。。你如果叫外国朋友就可以很快地提高英语水平。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:俠刀行

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

IPA

the messages below relate to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 November 28#IPA_usage rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't win the argument, the next best thing is to be able to "hang up the phone", yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument has happened over and over again and your "side" has already lost it many times; see the very top of Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet. And as I said, it's not an appropriate argument for the reference desk anyway, as that's not a place for deciding policy. If the lazy users who complain about IPA really want to make a change, they are welcome to start the argument elsewhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What I object to is having to learn a new language in order to read the English wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with the IPA stuff as such. It's the snobbery connected with its use that I object to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Many could say that the 'snobbery' connected with the use of US dictionary pronunciation guides is just as objectionable. Given that no pronunciation standard is universal among the English-speaking population, why should we use one that you happen to like? Why not use the one that is, from an objective standpoint, the one that reflects the sounds of language the most accurately and is the most widely used in the world (and that's not snobbery, those are facts). IPA is not a "new language" and claiming that people need to learn a new language is an exaggeration; it uses almost all the same letters that are in our alphabet and can be learned in a day, just like the pronunciation guides that you are supporting (remember that when you were in school you had to learn them, too, at some point). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive search box

Here is an archive search box for your talk page. You can modify it and place it according to your preferences.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

StarCraft articles and archive urls

Hello. I saw your post here and I was wondering if there is a list of StarCraft articles that need archive urls added? I wouldn't mind doing some manually.--Rockfang (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Starcraft article with links to transcripts from sclegacy.com... it looks like StarCraft, Characters of StarCraft, Species of StarCraft, Sarah Kerrigan, and Jim Raynor all have it. Probably over 100 links to correct, I think doing it by hand would be quite tedious. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be tedious, but I'll still help. :) Rockfang (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, wait a second.... before you start, I think there's an easier way to do this!

It looks like most of the links are actually from the same webpage: http://www.sclegacy.com/encyclopedia/starcraft_story.php (archive), just different anchors on that page. So rather than having to look up every link, the majority of them could be fixed by simply concatenating http://web.archive.org/web/20040810213217/ to the front and not worrying about looking them up specifically. I could do this pretty easily on AWB, I think, once I sit down and work out the search terms.

There are a few links that are different; some seem to be at http://www.sclegacy.com/content/starcraft-encyclopedia-4/starcraft-story-17/ instead of the link above. But think I think those ones can be fixed in the same way (just with a different archiveurl stuck on the front). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll hold off doing them manually by hand. Please let me know if your idea ends up working. Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind birthday wish J04n(talk page) 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite video

Are you aware <date> is for some reason a deprecated field? Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes, but at least one template was using it, and I assume many more are (given that "date2" is an extremely unintuitive name for the field). All templates with |date= and not |date2= were broken; the easier fix by far seemed to be to add date to the template, rather than making text changes to however many articles have the template transcluded. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I dug around, and it is yet another thing that arises from the date mess. I put my proposals on Template talk:Cite video seems like people have been meaning to get around to this for some time. I have a list of articles using date2 and I will probably start by replacing that with date. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Why?

I don't quite understand what you are referring to. Which user is this? Why is there no further discussion on #linguistics? ...some questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinovic (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What??? Where did this come from? I don't know what you're responding to. Context, please. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so great

WikiThanks

Thanks very much for fixing {{mountain index row}} !! —hike395 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Viral Video page

Sorry for not stating that two other individuals and myself are adding to the Viral Video page for a class project @ UNC-CH. We ask that before any changes or extreme alterations are made to our edits or additions can anyone please contact us before. Thanks for acknowledging! (Mfantroy (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for clarifying and sorry for the mishaps. Would it be alright if I post something brief about the future of Viral videos?

(Mfantroy (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Okay I understand that because what I had posted was from an blog. Thanks!

(Mfantroy (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry for the questions. Is it possible to cite information from another Wikipedia article/page?

Mfantroy (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. Thank you so much!

Mfantroy (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Class Project

Yes, many articles that are being improved are for a class project. Instead of a final exam, we are required to improve or create a new page for a topic relevant to our class. Mjohnston13 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Viral Video Additions

Hello. Yes, me and two other members are working on a class project. We are taking an information science course and one of the assignments was to create or help improve an existing Wiki page on a topic in the information science field.

Ebenj05 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Ebenj05

RK

OK. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

Hmm... -- I agree that the wording of this addition was completely POV and you were certainly right in reverting; on the other hand, I find it somewhat odd that for a geographical area that is (maybe only currently) such a hot-spot of ethnic tensions, there isn't a single word of it mentioned in the intro. Am I making sense? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the intro isn't really a good summary of the article right now. I would just like to see the summary written better (for example, something like what you said above would be perfect, just mentioning that there are ethnic tensions--we don't need to go into detail on sides). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a start and got reverted w/o explanation, twice. Is this borderline-vandalism? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent and telling me it was my WikiBirthday. I had absolutely no idea. ^_^ Clem (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

apostrophe-stuff

Actually, glottal stops can occur at the end of words as well; so we're looking for

~~IF <(not apostrophe)+'> OR <'+(not apostrophe)> THEN ʼ~~

(that's to avoid replacing italics and bold-markings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Or wait, that's probably junk as well... hmmm....maybe

IF <(not apostrophe)+'+(not apostrophe)> THEN ʼ

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Minority language place names in China

I wanted to consult you on the romanization of minority (i.e. Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian) place names in China. Is there a system in place sanctioned by the PRC government on how to correctly name these places? The most obvious examples are Urumqi, Hohhot, and Lhasa, but I also refer to county names which are not romanized according to pinyin. Colipon+(Talk) 15:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it seems to vary from place to place and it seems to be more just habit than policy. For example, Kumul in Xinjiang is generally called Kumul by Uyghurs but Hami by Chinese, and most "official" stuff uses Hami (this is one of the relatively few instances where a place has a totally different name for Chinese, rather than just a transliteration); on the other hand, in places you point out like Lhasa and Hohhot, romanizations seem to use the native name more often rather than the Chinese transliteration. Some are less clear (for example, Turpan/Turfan/Tulufan, which someone started an edit war about a few months ago). But long story short, as far as I know there's no unified policy on how to romanize (or, at least, no unified policy that is really followed). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question really is, how does Wikipedia decide on how to romanize and name things like this. Colipon+(Talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm... that one also might just have to be case-by-case. I think each place's romanization is influenced by a bundle of factors including native word, most common name in English-language materials, and existing standards on WP:

"Native" name/spelling	Pinyin of Chinese name	Other romanizations
Ürümchi (Ürümqi)	Wulumuqi	Urumqi
Qaramay (K̡aramay)	~~Kelamayi~~	Karamay
Aqsu (Ak̡su)	Akesu	Aksu
Qumul (K̡umul)	Hami	Kumul
Xoten (Hotən)	Hetian	Hotan
Qeshqer (K̡əxk̡ər)	Kashi	Kashgar
Turpan	Tulufan	Turfan
Altay	Aletai	Altai?

The above table covers only the Uyghur names from the template (and only the ones I'm familiar with). From that sample, though, it becaomes pretty clear that most of the current names (which the exception of Hami) follow more or less the native name, albeit with variations on the romanization. A bit of background on Uyghur romanizations... the one written on the left is the Uyghur Latin Yéziqi that is more or less official among Uyghurs and is closely based on IPA (note the use of Q for uvular stops, X for velar fricatives, etc.), and the one on the right is an alternate (and I think somewhat older) alphabet which is more pinyin-based (note that Q and H are like they are in pinyin). Most of the names in this template seem to follow the pinyin-based romanization more closely (with some changes made to use letters that appear on a normal keyboard--ie, using K instead of K̡, a instead of ə, etc). I don't know if this is a good reflection or not of which spellings are actually more common in the outside world. There are a couple exceptions—for instance, Kashgar, which doesn't use either of the Uyghur romanizations, since it's a more well-known name (compare to how, until relatively recently, people still commonly referred to Guangdong as "Canton"...or to the use of romanizations like "Mao Tse-Tung" even though WG is more or less defunct by now).

It may be helpful to do a larger survey of the Xinjiang placenames on WP... what I've looked at so far is a bit limited, and some may be skewed because of my own influence (for example, "Turpan" breaks the pattern because I moved it away from "Turfan", and "Aksu" and some others almost ended up at "Akesu" and I had to fight with a Chinese nationalist to prevent that from happening). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I've always had trouble deciding what to name these ethnic minority places and deciding which one is more "proper". I will consult you if I come across anything that I cannot figure out. Funny that only Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uyghur names are not Romanized according to pinyin, yet Zhuang and Korean names are. Colipon+(Talk) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang Riots update

Let me get back to you on this. I'm quite busy writing final papers now and I have some Ph.d applications I need to send off. I don't think the article needs a complete rewrite, but adding more information on what the Chinese government's views are would help. I'll write more about this over the holiday break. Take care. David Straub (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Shipbuilding not high-tech industry

Hi, I just wanted to point out that we can also put it under the main intro. I guess you have some valid points too regarding that as well. No problems. Alohahell (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to cram the picture in anywhere. The article is already full of unnecessary, decorative, unencyclopedic pictures—it looks more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question

Hey. You asked whether I have any connection to ASDFGH, or some user like that. Nah, I don't know who that is or anything. Sorry. I'm back on wiki now, will be editing regularly. Along with the Falun Gong pages, I think I have some good contributions to make to pages on China and its governance generally.--Asdfg12345 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Ahem...

Hey Rjanag... I just wanted to wish you a very good... "day" (now, I wouldn't really want to reveal any sensitive details here...) ;) Have a good one! -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And congratulations on the AST ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

File:18th Birthday.jpg

Hey, Rjanag. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- MisterWiki talk contribs 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the wikibirthday wishes. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Boiling Springs, PA

Hello Rjanag,

I am new to editing and decided to add some information to the entry on my home town. I deleted a reference to the estimated depth of the springs because the source I have (and the only published source as far as I know) did not mention who did that depth estimate.

You then changed it back faster than I could blink.

I then put in the missing documentation and left in the shaky claim, which appears to be local legend.

So, beginner that I am, please tell me how I should have handled that. Should I have just noted my reasoning in the notes for the changes, or should I have added a questionable reference with a caveat as I did? BotManPA (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

No, I don't. I uploaded them thinking the intentions that the copyright was correct. I have no qualms with them being deleted. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the same image has cropped up again at File:TheSaturdays2009Promoshot.jpg. Can you do the honours of deleting it? Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tomb Raider: Underworld

That picture is back again if you hadn't noticed. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed it and warned the user again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page discussion has started (though he also added it back in one more time). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny

...because your signature appears as gibberish in blue and red on my browser as well. What kind of browser do you use? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I must raise my hand for this one and note the same for you, Lanterix ;P -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Shubinator

Sorry about that, it appeared that it was transcluded, but that's my fault. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops...actually, it looks like someone had transcluded it and I just hadn't realized (it has since been un-transcluded). Anyway, I imagine it will be transcluded soon (we're waiting on a co-nom statement and then she or I will transclude it right away) and then you can re-post your comment. Sorry about the mix-up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done. Thanks for the heads up.Doc Quintana (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to message you left me

Hello rjanag, I received your message and hereby acknowledge it. Moreover, I checked out your claims and went over several articles you listed in your "good" list. I agree, they are good. You seem to be able to do an article right. I'm impressed. As for the several other admins on the page you say have similar records, I didn't go hunting and don't plan to, so I cannot verify that. However, there is no reason not to take your word for it. You have quite an interesting list of good articles there; I think you can be justly proud of them. I note your interest in the military. I'm interested somewhat in it myself.

In my experience, however, not all sysadmins have the same emphasis on quality. My skepticism derives from a considerable number of negative experiences, where a sysadm (who should have known better) pulled rank to insist on lower-quality material, some totally inaccurate. Some sysadmins have insisted even on doing things in a way inconsistent with WP policy. Basically I was told to shut up with the hinted threat of being blocked. That is the source of my cynicism. You know, I've considered requesting adm status to give me some clout - I think I'm probably qualified at this point - but, actually working on articles appeals to me rather than police work. I suspect, once you get started with administration work, it probably takes a lot of your time. I notice you have had to spend a lot of time doing blocks and deletions and whatnot.

I think I trust your article judgement all right, even though I may have a slightly different view. You don't seem to be exercising it much on the linguistics articles; there are quite a number of bad ones, many of them tagged. I presume that is not your main interest. I think that is how you managed to encounter me. I'm interested in getting some good linguistics articles, so that means I concentrate on the ones of interest that need the most work.

I understand your tone with me, which seems a little high-handed. However, I suppose I could be more civil. Whether I can work on the linguistics article with you - well, I'm not sure now. I note that in your articles you are quite detailed and so am I so I have no doubt we would be disagreeing on many details. The problem is, since you are the sysadm, I would always be losing, always be being reverted, without recourse. That is what I meant about power. I do my best work with a freer hand. Once in a while I get a suggestion from a peer, which I usually take. If I hear from a sysadm it is because I am not setting things up in the accepted way. I'm still learning even though I have thousands of edits now. You aren't presenting yourself to me as a peer. I do not know if that statement qualifies as something good or something bad so I'm choosing to put this under "other."

Well, I'm going on with my edits now. I do not yet know if I will take on helping to clean up the locked article. Let's see how it goes. If you were to take an interest in helping to fix the linguistics artcles that need the most work I think we would advance the cause of good articles in that area much faster. I you disagree with any of my edits be sure and speak up. I'm not going to edit war with you but I can let you know if I disagree. I think I trust your judgement - thanks for bringing it to my attention - but whether I can work in your proximity I think we will have to see. Ciao, and merry Christmas.Dave (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur language

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even see it there (more bad results from late-night editing). It's removed now. Otebig (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point one or more errors on this?

I just copied this from our recent discussions. If you can point any errors and be able to provide the reasons, please try. And i am interested only in errors and their grammatical reasons, nothing else. Also, if you want, please delete this post onecs you read. Thank you.

In 1, the sentence needs a subject that can correspond the second clause, like--In order to be understood a speech, proper articulation and pronunciation are necessary.

In 6, the correlative conjunction lacks parallelism; needs a parallel NP, like--I was told that I could get both a degree in designing and a position to become a teacher.

The 8 have options on split infinitive, like--When we go to the lake on weekends, I have to sleep either in the car or in a broken down bed.

The 10 is vague in terms of its subordination. An options would be--I have often heard the saying that 'experience is the best teacher'. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You delete every message I leave at your talk page, with no response and with a rude edit summary, and now suddenly you expect me to help you with something? I have no interest in this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!

Thanks for getting the WP:100 listing.[74] I meant to do it along with my other closure stuff, but it slipped my mind (as I was also processing a WP:NOTNOW RfA). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I didn't even realize it was anyone's job in particular, so I just went ahead and did it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it falls directly under the purview of the closing 'crat, but I enjoy being rather thorough in my RfX closures. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And if EVula says it's his job, it must be true. Shubinator (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mwuhaha, you're officially my favorite administrator that I've ever promoted this month. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool! *scratches head* Wait a second... Shubinator (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NCFOM legacy

I don't feel strongly either way, but it's a pretty common practice on movies and other fiction articles to include a section where references to the work are mentioned. Is that what you're objecting to? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it might help to at least change the title of the section; a single reference in a TV show doesn't seem to constitute a "legacy", especially when the film has probably had a bigger (but less tangible) impact in other ways. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)