This is an archive of past discussions with 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 May, June, and July 2009.
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.
hahaha thanks alot! ive enjoyed my first year on wikipedia alot!!!Sepulwiki 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion
I need your help. I added tags to Alexz Johnson the only user who edits it removed because he does not see "multiple issues". I know the tags I added are valid I'm just look for a third opinion so we can avoid a edit war. So, if you can just take a look and tell me if the claims are valid it'll be a great help. Also good luck on your RfA, I voted for you. ;) 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise)20:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Rjanag, it is official. At this time of writing, your RfA stands at 99 editors in support and only one in opposition (and it's DougTech). You are about to hit WP:100. You really deserve it, too — you're one of the most polite and helpful editors I've seen around. You'll make an excellent administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
On "111" The community may turn a blind eye on canvassing if you were to look around for one more commentercommentator editor and settle for a prime number. --Preceding unsigned comment21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I'll just have to get that page full-protected so no one else messes up the numbering! (it will make it hard for anyone to oppose, too...muahaha). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Too late. I just wish I'd known sooner so I wouldn't be all the way down at #113 in offering my strong support. Presumptive congratulations here and to celebrate you can take over the 2am DYK updates for a while. (Dang, I miss that bot.) - Dravecky (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rjanag. I was making a submission at WP:PNT and I noticed an article that you may be able to assist with. 水至清则无鱼 人至察则无徒 needs translation, and given it is likely Chinese (Which type, I don't know) I figured you may be able to provide a better translation than the machine generated one that is accompanying it currently. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
At first glance, it does look like a personal essay (like someone suggested at PNT). I'll try to take a closer look tonight and see if there's anything worth salvaging. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep—the place where this photo was taken is actually an entire field of them (people grow it as a crop), it's just hard to tell because they're all at different stages of growth (only a couple are flowering). When I went there and took these photos, we ate dinner next to that field and I think just about every dish had lotus seeds. They're pretty awesome plants. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
NP... like I said, when I reviewed you a few weeks ago, I didn't see anything that would have barred ya. And with Ottava, the one person whom I was a little worried based upon your past, supporting, there was no doubt in my mind that you'd pass.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Any material that I've written which I've reposted from my Bob Feldman 68 blogsite onto the Wikipedia alternative enyclopedia, which I originally wrote for Downtown in the 1990s (before Wikipedia existed as a reference source) is now considered public domain (since I don't believe in the philosophical concept of copyrighting or privatizing access to information.
So there really wouldn't be any legal basis for deleting the more detailed historical information I recently posted to Wikipedia's entry for Parade magazine's and Vogue's history. Feel free to restore any of the material from my Bob Feldman 68 blog site that you think might interest your Wikipedia readers to your encyclopedia's Parade and Vogue, since none of this material is copyrighted and all of the material is public domain, since Downtown is now a defunct publication and the rights reverted to me and the public.
Trusting Corporate Sources More Than Anti-Corporate Sources?
Rjanag,
If you're not going to delete from your encyclopedia all the inaccurate unverifiable material from the corporate web sites that you're currently allowing to be posted as a wikipedia listing (Vogue, for example, began as a weekly fashion magazine, not as a "biweekly" magazine as your wikipedia entry states, etc.), then it doesn't seem editorially ethical to automatically delete the more accurately researched historical material that comes from anti-corporate, public domain blogs and bloggers/writers from your wikipedia listings. Also, the more you block information from being added to your encyclopedia by dissident anti-corporate writers, the less credible become the mission claims that wikipedia might make to its readers and foundation funders about it being some kind of equal access, "alternative" type of encyclopedia.
So my impression is that by retaining the sketchy, misleading wikipedia historical listings you now have for Parade and Vogue in your encyclopedia and blocking the more detailed historical material from a public domain, anti-corporate blog site from being added for wikipedia users, you're not really giving most wikipedia users the alternative encyclopedia that they want. And I don' think it makes any sense to edit wikipedia material so that wikipedia starts to function more as just an historical publicity shield for corporate entities like the Newhouse media conglomerate.
Recount!!! 130 something supports? Worst case of ballot stuffing we've seen in a looong time. You're like Wikipedia's Al Franken. Hahahahahaha. Only kidding. But hopefully someone will get upset anyway so you can block the futz out of em. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have also sorted out any redirects, as well as links in descriptions. "Various artists" however does exist, so I cannot replace the links for them, and the two remaining are archives so I shouldn't edit them either - Best Wishes! Limideen 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S If any more reaapear just leave a message on my talk page :)
Congratulations
I see from [1] that you have started recently on the CSD patrol just today. Good luck. You will probably get some feedback from users on this too. Have you rescued anything? The last one I rescued was Noemi Letizia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't a few months ago, but I got to a point where the tools would be useful to me and I would (I hope) be useful to the project if I had the tools, so I figured I'd give it a shot. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving a red AfD flag on a "deleted" bio page of a living person is not a deletion of the article at all. Instead, it creates a very negative image of that person when people visit the URL. It implicitly represents a judgment and a disqualification and thus impugns the excellent reputation of the individual. For the sake of fairness and neutrality Wikipedia must adopt and implement a policy that differentiates between a living person and an impersonal subject matter when installing templates that might cast aspersions. Wikipedia choses not to include a biographical article about a living person in the encyclopedia that is fine, but out of respect and commitment to neutrality, you should remove and blank any red flags and tags and all references to deletion, in order to preserve the individual's good name and standing in contemporary society. I intend to bring this matter before the appropriate admins, stewards and policy wonks. Meanwhile I would appreciate that YOU STOP re-deleting a bio page until the courtesy blanking issue is further explored by specialized Biography Project admins. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Wikipedia has a policy that if a page is deleted through an AfD discussion, it should not be recreated. Are you saying that the link to the past AfD discussion in the edit summary in the original deletion is not appropriate and should be oversighted? As far as I know, that has never been done before (when a page is deleted there needs to be a record of the discussion that led to it, for transparency and archiving purposes), and linking to an AfD does not really harm the individual's reputation; in fact, only Wikipedia-savvy people will even be able to find the AfD. In any case, the bottom line is, there is no policy or consensus against my deletion, and if anyone is in danger of "damaging" the individual's representation it might be you, for doubling the article's deletion log by re-creating it once it was already innocuously deleted.
Again, I'm not really sure what exactly you're asking for, and if what you're asking for is that we not include a link to the AfD discussion, then that is not going to happen. If you believe the policy of linking to AfD discussions is bad, you can raise a message at the Village Pump suggesting a policy change. In the meantime, there's no reason to attack admins for following a policy that you happen to not like. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've re-read your message and it seems you're referring to the notice above the "create article" page that says "you are re-creating an article that was previously deleted". Notices like this are automatically generated by MediaWiki software, and deleting administrators don't have any control over them. Like I said, if you believe these notices are damaging to living people (I don't believe they are) then you should raise a discussion at the Village Pump proposing that the software be changed. In the meantime, there is nothing any of us can do about it, and we certainly can't stop deleting articles while that discussion is pending. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this discussion and wanted to add an additional comment. After looking at the deleted page, I don't believe that it implies nor states anything negative on the subject. Only a person who was either trying to re-create the article or who followed a link to it would ever see the notice - using the standard wiki go/search box to locate mention of Ana Elsner does not show the notice. Also, even if someone did reach the message, all it does is factually states that the article about the person was deleted, and provides an explaination of why it was deleted.
As an additional note, I should mention that this issue has actually been discussed on Wikipedia within the last year or two. The result of that discussion was a change to the standard delete notices to the current neutral phrasing that simply states the fact about the article deletion. In the past, article deletion notices for biographies would include in the notices that the biography page was deleted due to lack of demonstrated notability (or similar wording - I forget the exact phrasing) - that prior wording could certainly imply that the subject was not notable, while the current wording does not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated
Hi, Rjanag. If you have a moment, would you step in and enjoy a world of Nirvana? I nominated a Chinese food article to DYK under the name of Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, but the current title is at "Fo tiao qiang" as a result of some editors' edit warring. I want to secure my nom by moving to the intriguing but mysterious name (to readers). Would you comment at Talk:Fo_tiao_qiang#Move to where?? Thanks.--Caspian blue00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a spare moment and are interested, I was wondering if you would be willing to peer review this article I am working on. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
...For the wiki-bday greetings, didn't even think about it, honestly :D Also, congrats on passing your RFA! umrguy4200:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's not an obnoxious 鬼子 question, how would you spell in Latin alphabet / pronounce in English " 军阀 "? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's the backstory. User:Dinoguy2 mentioned here that he has a blog, so I took a look at it. He says here - http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2009/04/tyrannosaur-jr.html - that "Tyrannosaurs are of course known as "tyrant lizards," but Jaime Headden has coined another term for basal, small tyrannosauroids that fall outside the family Tyrannosauridae proper: despots." Since a lot of these puppies lived in what is now China, and since China is noted for having had warlords, and since IMHO "warlord" is a much cooler word than "despot"... -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Time Traveler's Wife peer review
Congrats on your well-deserved success at RfA!
As for the Time Traveler's Wife peer review, once an article is on the backlog the regular reviewers who work on the backlog use the {{doing}} template to avoid duplication of effort (most things on the backlog get only one review, but we are always glad when they get more comments). I am delighted you took the time to make such a detailed review of the article - I had read most of it when Awadewit first posted it at PR (I do the semi-automated PRs as AZPR) and so knew I had a few things to say about it. I will make some more comments later today. Thanks for the review and for all you do on WP and especially at DYK, Ruhrfisch><>°°15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Te felicito por haber aventurado borrar mis paginas con BLUEBOY, pero tengo todos los derechos de copia, por si no lo sabias!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ÆR (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible change to UpdatedDYK
I noticed that the if statements for DYK credits on creators' talk pages aren't substituted, which results in a mess of code. (The current system uses Ameliorate!'s DYKmake and DYKnom, which rely on {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}.) I was thinking of adding the subst: statements to {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}. There's one hitch though: there are a few dozen user talk pages that have the un-substituted templates (see here and here). If we subst: the statements, the code will show on those templates. So what should we do? There are a few options: 1) Nothing, 2) make the change and do nothing to the user talk archives and hope they don't notice, 3) go into the user talk archives and substitute the templates, then make the change, 4) make new {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}} copies that substitute the if statements. Shubinator (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the best thing would be to add <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> to {UpdatedDYK} and {UpdatedDYKnom} and go in and manually substitute the templates on the people's talk pages (or ask someone with AWB to do it...as an admin I'm supposed to be able to use AWB now, but I've been having trouble getting it installed and I've been too lazy to deal with it once and for all). I tried things out in my sandbox and it's as you predicted: without subst'ing {UpdatedDYK} it makes a mess, but once you subst it (even if you do it after the fact) everything becomes right again. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not coming back to clarify my neutral at your RfA; I was real-life busy. I believe User:Flaming/RFA#Neutral sums it up. If this were someone else's talk page, I would probably go into more detail, because I like to talk about RfA candidates in third person... but that really isn't an option here, since you're the second person. Well, have a nice time with the tools ^^ DON'T BLOCK ME pl0xflaminglawyer22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I figured it was something along those lines, and didn't take it personally. I was planning on indef-blocking you, but since you asked so nicely I guess I won't for now... rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Tony Hollingsworth
Dear Rjanag
I have noticed that you have reversed a number of changes that I made a few days ago to the entry for Tony Hollingsworth. The explanation for many of the reversals is, I gather, that I have used “peacock” terms that do not actually add any information. Having spent nearly 30 years as a professional journalist, working for titles such as the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal, I also have a certain antipathy to this kind of wrtiting. But I would argue that this term in not applicable in these instances.
It seems to me that there is a very large difference between organising a live music concert and organising the types of global cause-related campaigns that are being described here, and hence in the roles and responsibilities of the person in charge.
The first instance involves assessing the likely live demand for a particular performer, booking them into an appropriate venue, providing a certain amount of advertising and then selling at most a few thousand tickets (which is not easy).
The second requires all of the same skills but a lot of others on top. It involves starting with the cause one is trying to promote – such as the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa or helping the world’s disadvantaged children – and then designing a campaign to achieve this.
This means not only coming up with the original concept, but also working with all of the worldwide media outlets involved – television, radio, web, mobile and print – to design a campaign that will maximise coverage including a television audience of several hundred million people. Plus working with sponsors, advertisers, film and television rights buyers and venue promotors to raise the finance to achieve this. So while the campaign might culminate in a live event which forms the basis of a global broadcast event, this live event forms only a small part of the process. And the arrangement of the particular artists who are taking part in the event actually comes quite late in the day, rather than at the beginning.
It is quite clear from Tony Hollingsworth’s biography that while he started his career organising the first type of activity, he has spent the last 20 years on the second, and it is appropriate that he should be described as such.
The above also illustrates why it is so important to make clear that it was Hollingsworth who “conceived, finance and produced” the first Mandela event, as was indeed the case. If these words do not appear, then who did conceive, finance and produce this event? The article does not say. The implication that is left is that it must somehow have been a combination of the ANC and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the Hollingsworth was merely commissioned to do the work. Indeed, many people have in subsequent years drawn exactly this erroneous conclusion. The fact that it is untrue is quite clear from the referenced statements from those involved at the time.
I do not understand why you have reversed my attempt to reorder the four events in bullet points. I was merely putting these into the correct chronological order – The Wall (1990), Guitar Legends (1991), The Great Music Experience (1994) and Moscow (1997). Why is the present (and reinstated) order preferable to this?
Apologies, I'm in a hurry right now and won't have time to look at this more closely until this evening. I'll try to leave you a better response then. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Rjanag
Have you had a chance to have a further look at this?
Wireless, sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I've looked at what you said and, honestly, I still feel pretty much the same way. No matter what the difference is between what Hollingsworth does and general event organizing, his job description still seems to be organizing live events. Events that are related to other causes, perhaps, but it's still event organizing (and as far as I can tell, he is not the head of these global campaigns, he is just the person hired to organize the events for them). Somewhere down in the article it can be mentioned that the events he organizes are linked to global campaigns, but in the first sentence, which is meant to give a simple and clear description, just the basics should be mentioned.
The main thing, again, is writing style. If you write a sentence like "is one of the key world figures...", and throwing around words like "renowned" and "landmark", especially without providing any sources for why these things are apparently so great, no one is going to even give you the benefit of the doubt—no one will look past poor writing to see the real content of the article. So the important thing is to worry about neutral tone first, and avoiding peacock words; you can try to work in more details then, but neutrality needs to be in the front of your mind.
This is exactly the point. In most cases he IS the head of the global campaign. Look at my comment above about the first Mandela initiative. Hollingsworth conceived the whole campaign, arranged the finance and then produced it (and I mean the whole campaign and not just the live event at the end). He wasnt "hired" by anyone, as the references from the ANC and the AAM make clear. They benefitted from the campaign in lots of ways. But it wasnt their idea and they didnt pay anything towards it.
Further to the final sentence above, far from being paid by the ANC and the AAM, Tony Hollingsworth was able to use the surplus from the campaign he had conceived and organised to pay US$5 million to six Southern African charities selected by Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, who at the time was president of the AAM. The figure is mentioned in Mike Terry's letter of 18th January 2003 which is referenced in Peter Elman's article.
Your "hidden comment" on Idk has given me an idea. What you have done is, IMHO, much better done via edit comments. And I did something very similar with a different group of pages a while back. Check out Girlfriend, and then click Edit, for an example of these in use. Then check out Template:Editnotices/Girlfriend and Template:Romeo notice for the guts of the notices. I'm thinking something similar could/should be done with your notice as a starting point. Set up a central template for the actual text (like Romeo Notice), and then install the template as a notice on any slang wiktionary soft redirect that regularly gets dicdefs added. Will this stop them, no. But any wanna-be dicdef adder who sees it and stops is one less revert that we have to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea, although I don't know if it will change things...the article is short enough that a hidden comment is no more or less visible than an editnotice. And, to be honest, I think problem edits to IDK are probably not as frequent as to Girlfriend, or as serious (since it's probably not a page people look up as often), so I'm not sure an editnotice is necessary where reverts will do. If it does become bad, we could semi-protect the page; I don't think that would harm the encyclopedia, since it's a page that's pretty much never (at least in the foreseeable future) gonna have any valid possibility for expansion anyway, so the only thing we'd be preventing is bad edits, not good ones. Basically, I'm not sure there's a need to create a new editnotice page (although, granted, we're not supposed to worry about performance) when other tools available to us would do. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Lists of Chinese prisons
Hi Rjanag,
these lists deserve notes on the prisons. Could you please tell whether you will add them or how I should add them?
Kind regards,
Sarcelles (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean List of re-education through labor camps in China? Adding notes is pretty easy (there's already a Notes column), it's just a matter of deciding what specifically deserves to be included. The Laogai handbook has different sorts of notes for different RTLs, depending on who collected the data in a given region (some entries say how many people are estimated to be in the RTL, some say what that RTL produces, some say how many police are there, some give its history, others give nothing), but this article should have some sort of standards (ie, it shouldn't just be an indiscriminate collection of data). Furthermore, simply copying all the "notes" in the Laogai handbook is not desirable, because it brings up concerns of copyright (which, to be honest, I'm already a little worried about....the article as it stands is basically a reproduction, in MediaWiki format, of the Laogai Research Foundation's work). Anyway, if you can give me a little more information on what sort of "notes" you want to see added, I can think about what should be done. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. The lists can be note-ified the same way I did for the RTL list (you can even copy and paste the same formatting, if you want, to make similar tables); all the information is available in the 2007–2008 Laogai Handbook, which you can access from the sources list on the RTL list. To be perfectly honest, I have no intention of doing this for the lists of prisons, because it's not something I'm interested in (I'm very interested in the general topic of China's penal system, but specifically listing the prisons is not something that excites me) and I'm still doubtful about whether or not reproducing the LRF's work like this is right. In fact, if I had to make a decision now, I would be half-tempted to AfD all the prison lists now as sort-of-copyvio, and instead place a link to the Laogai Handbook somewhere within the Penal system in the People's Republic of China and sub-articles. I probably won't actually go through with that, but it's just a thought (and an illustration of why I don't see myself working on these articles anytime in the forseeable future). Sorry, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign!01:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I finally found an article subject that you are passionate and determined about. If only I had had had had had had had had had had known sooner, I would have tortured you with it earlier. I think it should be merged to word games or word usage. Or maybe transwikied? Gosh this is fun. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Help from you and the other editors who worked on it has been invaluable. It feels like it's been a long time since I started working on that article, but looking back it's actually just been about three months...time flies when you're having fun. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just looked at the article stats: you have 149 edits, I have 72, someone has 9 and everyone else has fewer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
re: street newspaper -- nice work, all! This is a lovely article on a fascinating topic, kept my attention fully. I recognize the picture of the Real Change (Seattle) vendor; he used to sell outside my neighborhood grocery :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to provide some input into the discussion about alternative meanings of the term "Street newspaper" on the talk page, seeing as you've reverted the edits in the article? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll take up the habit of sticking to others' talk pages right now. About the FA stuff: That's a lot to swallow, but I think I understand. Looking at your articles, it seems there are some pretty high standards. Those superscript references are interesting; are they mandatory? Essetra (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Korea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. rʨanaɢCherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
Opening paragraph
The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity).
According to WP:LEDE, it is not porper that remove current status info, and filled history section. i already said, history section is duplicated information. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
not all users support its claim. baeksu is not spport your claim. and it is not a proper reason that its sourced material must be deleted. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion at Talk:South Korea. As for the 3RR warning, yes, [3] was a revert, you simply restored an earlier version of the article and moved a paragraph around a bit. And finally, Baeksu specifically said on the talk page that he liked Mtd2006's original edit, which you have been reverting. As for "duplicated information," the lede section is supposed to duplicate information that appears later in the article; it's meant to be a summary of the main points, and History is one of the main points in the article. And finally, here's another user who doesn't agree with your changes. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikibirthday
Thanks for the birthday wishes. I will do my very best to live up to the ideals of Wikipedia in the years to come. Davidelit (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I got rather tied and English is not my best skill.
Under Types it is peak.
Under Stimulus repetition, It should read something like "This effect links to intelligence AS THE REDUCTION IN N100 WITH SELF CONTROL OCCURS MOST STRONGLY IN those with greater intelligence." --LittleHow (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Smelly socks
I guess it is time for you to SPI file on the old friend living in London.
Wondergirls = 86.148.181.54 = the returned editor.--Caspian blue15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I left a message with Nishkid64, who blocked the last iteration of the Wondergirls/Ziggymaster sock. Pds0101 looks pretty likely to be another sock, but I figured it's easiest just to get in touch with Nishkid or another blocking admin one-on-one, rather than go through the trouble and red tape of SPI. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your response! At first I just noticed that the "terminology" paragraph was a 1:1 copypaste of one of the essays I linked to in my deletion request. But when digging further into the article I realized that almost every paragraph was at least partially copypasted from the various sources. Your suggestion to go through the article step-by-step also came to my mind, but that would be extremely time-consuming because of the length of the article and the vast number of potential sources. Thus I thought it might be more efficient to delete the thing and let it start it all over again. Nonetheless I'll follow your administratorial rule, and as a first step remove the obvious copyvio paragraphs. --DavidDCM (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rjanag,
I tried to do as you said, and went through the article step by step. I discovered that the vast majority of it is copyrighted material, so I put it into articles for deletion despite your advice. If you want, you can read my (pretty long) reasoning in the deletion discussion --DavidDCM (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Bigflavor
Rjanag,
I had created the image, which was posted on 4chan.org. It is arguable that the work from which it was derived (the background image) is, in fact, copyrighted. Since, I can not gain clearance on that, I suppose it is fact that I can not claim copyleft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigflavor (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm watching his contribs, and the moment he signs another talkpage with that sig I'm going to start a thread at ANI. That's something he won't be able to ignore. I feel a little bad that we have to treat him like a child this way, but he has ignored all three of our attempts to talk to him like an adult. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
DYKHousekeepingBot
To keep up the DYK RfA trend, I've started a (B)RfA for DYKHousekeepingBot :P The code's all written and it could start running as soon as it's approved. It relies on your handy template for the file tagging, so when you're ready, we can move it to template namespace. The bot worked very well on a dry run, creating usable archives and a table for WP:DYKSTATS from the page hits. I learned a bit of the history of DYK too – here is the first bot edit to update DYK! Shubinator (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good! My only question is, how exactly does the bot harvest the pageview stats for articles that just ran? Does it wait until the next day and then come back?
It's a one time bot to go through the old DYKs. I suppose after it's done all of those I could run it every week or so. The template looks fine, but I'll keep an eye out for anything funny. Templates are nice because there's no damage done if something's wrong with the template (well, if it's not substituted). I could start the bot with DYKfile now, and there would be a lot of redlinks, but they'd be fixed when the move is done. Shubinator (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, now I remember that being discussed before. That should be fine; running it again periodically is also a way to go, but we can cross that bridge when we come there.
I just noticed that {{dyktalk}} is fully protected. Could you add the views parameter? What you suggested here is fine. The bot just got approved for trial, so I'll be revving it up within the hour. Keep your fingers crossed. Actually, keep your fingers ready to block the bot if it goes haywire (j/k, I've got literally 3 ways of taking it down). Shubinator (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just finished the first real run for the bot. It ran for 4 hours before it stopped because of a problem with the connection to Wikipedia. Looks like there's one bug with archiving, and maybe one with file detection, but overall it went well. The archives are easy to clean up (the first one's here btw). Oh, and your DYKfuture page showed 328/188/1516 near the start of the run...we'll see where it ends up. Shubinator (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3RR WARNING
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Korea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've identified 4 reverts within the last 24 hours + you have reverted numerous times in the past. You will be reported to the administrators. Thanks. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The account User:Meandmyrighthand was created one minute after User:Meandmylefthand. No evidence of abuse at present, as User:Meandmyrighthand hasn't edited. Of course, Wikipedia permits multiple accounts and only prohibits using them disruptively or deceptively. Still, when a user involved in a dispute starts creating multiple accounts, it gives one pause. --Rrburke(talk)
Yep, I saw it; thanks for the notice. I'm sure it will be thrown out quickly; the reverts he reported are over a period of a week and not even all the same thing. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Why have I been issued a 3RR warning?? I have only once reverted anything on the South Korean page within the last 3 days of editing. I am also keeping an eye on the page(introduction in particular), so that it is in the same version as you and Baeksu are trying to keep. Pds0101 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed User:Stetsonharry some resources to help avoid potential issues in the future. He truly did not realize he was plagiarizing and is working to try to understand what went wrong here and how he can avoid these problems in the future. I hope you can see that he is acting completely in good faith, and will join me in helping him learn from this experience. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Illinois v. Indiana
Thanks for the catch. With Aurora, Illinois, being so much more famous than its counterpart in Indiana I had to stop myself from typing "Illinois" more than once while writing the article. I guess I should have stopped myself one more time. - Dravecky (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for N100
On May 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article N100, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinese classifier, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Rajasaurus
Hi! Rjanag,
May I request you to please revisit the above article to review the tag, since another expert on the subject has edited it?--Nvvchar (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nvvchar, sorry it's taken me so long to get back. Anyway, it would probably be better to ask J. Spencer about this, since he's the one who did the rewriting and he's more familiar with the content. I'm sure that if he went through it it's probably all fine now, but I'd feel more comfortable letting him remove the tag (since he knows what the state of the article is, whereas all I can do right now is assume—and I'd rather not go through one sentence at a time, as JSpencer probably already has). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I took up the matter with User J. Spencer and he has done the needdful. Please the discussion page of the article.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Overlinking in Job hunting
See this edit that I have removed over a 100 (!) links. There is no justification at all for restoring the {{Overlinked}} template. If there are a few links that in your opinion should have been removed, which I have missed or deemed usefull, just go ahead. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Talk:Job_hunting. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your edit was a major improvement and a good start towards cleanup, but the article is still massively overlinked. Just from glancing at one section, linkïng words like "language" and "interest" does nothing for the reader, no one has any reason or need to follow a link like that. This problem still is rife throughout the article, and I have no personal interest in going through the article with a fine-toothed comb (plus I´m technically on a wikibreak right now) so the tag should remain until someone has really fixed the issue. --rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I disagree with you about the appropriateness of these few links. But the point is another: overlinked is not for a few controversial links, it's for massive overlinking. That's why I said, go ahead and remove them. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That´s my point; those aren´t the only two bad links I found, they´re just a couple random ones I grabbed and chose as examples of a greater problem in the article. There are links everywhere, for utterly mundane terms. --rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In another article linking "emplyment} e.g. would be superfluous, but in an article about job hunting that is a relevant link. Anyway. After I removed over a 100 links and link-density is down to normal levels with all ridiculous links removed, {{Overlinked}} is out of place. I'd appreciate it if you could take fiveminutes (which is all it would take) and take care of whatever you see. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It´s not just a few links, it´s tons, almost all superfluous. You may have removed over 100 links, but there are still hundreds more that are crap. It´s not necessarily my job to clean up an article like this; like any editor, I have the right to point out an obvious problem I see (by tagging it) and not bother to fix it because I´m busy or not interested. Since you have removed the tag again, I´m not going to restore it because I´m not interested in getting into an edit war, and it´s a moot point regardless because soon the article is going to be reverted to the version before Chuck Marean touched it, so this will all be meaningless anyway. --rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The bot's hitting some bumps because of the vandalism and background noise on DYK before it was protected in 2005. Two files, File:Mtvernon1.jpg and File:Mount vernon stamp.JPG, were on DYK, so the bot tagged them. Problem is, they weren't part of a legitimate DYK (1, 2). Could you delete the two pages? Shubinator (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm...looks pretty straightforward, but I'm not sure about images and how the whole mirroring Commons stuff works...maybe it would be better to run this by an admin who's familiar with images and Commons. Jappalang and Howcheng both know about that stuff, I think. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page..." (emhphasis mine) I believe it meets the Good article criteria. If you don't feel free to fail the nomination. PowersT13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Bugbear
This has nothing to do with the other thing. =) This closure seems to be in violation of policy; if you merged content, you should keep a redirect with the edit history for attribution purposes, right? PowersT16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see a need to keep a redirect since nothing else links to that page and it's not a likely search term (if someone wants to search for "bugbears in popular culture", they can find the main "bugbear" article easily enough). If attribution is an issue, the edit history of Bugbears in popular culture is still visible to admins. I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues, so if someone else says the edit history needs to be visible to everyone then they can restore the 11 edits and redirect it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Rjanag. I took your last clause "then they can restore the 11 edits and redirect it," to be a declaration that you would not do so. My apologies. PowersT12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me about your edit, redirecting Chanteuse to its Wiktionary entry. In retrospect, that would’ve been a much simpler solution that requesting it for deletion, and it makes more sense as well! Thank you for your contribution. ARTICHOKE-BOY (Talk)20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The bulk of primary historical information available comes from the church's own archival historical record. Why is this unacceptable to use as a source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crixxx (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, but I actually the example listed at the top, which caused confusion with "Example.png" (especially since some templates require the omission of File:/Image:. --Bobak (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We must be talking about two different things, because if you had used the template it would have been impossible to get the formatting error that happened (the template automatically inserts "File:"). It's not a big deal either way. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And, by the way, I wouldn't have had to "drag you through ANI", as you call it, if you had talked to me when I asked. The long response you left at ANI, that would have been nice to see on your talkpage as well. It's disappointing to see that you don't "respect" (your words) other editors until they are pressuring you at ANI. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:warning vandals
Sorry about rushing to conclusions. I tend to crack down very hard on what I view as unproductive vandalism-only accounts, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Did you know there's a whole field of inactive, unused accounts whose only purpose is to abuse a userpage to promote vandalism that would normally be reverted in articles? just a littleinsignificant00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense... Okay, sounds good! I'll follow Wikipedia policy for the good of Wikipedia. (Wow, I can't believe I'm even saying this. In what crazy situation...) :) just a littleinsignificant02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Joseon Dynasty
Rjanag, Hello, I ask for your help. Yesterday, some new editor edited Joseon Dynasty but inserted this, "Korea was client state according to Japan, China, and some Western view" in the first sentence of the intro. Chinese scholars and some Westerns think both Korea and Japan were vassal states of China. However, the concept differs from Western's feudal concept. It is for better trades. Japan was also a vassal state of China until Ming Dynasty, and Korea had considered Japan a much inferior state filled with pirates and savages such as Wae or Wako but, are the notion mentioned in the intro? I think the new editor grossly violates Npov, and UNDUE. So I want you to watch the article, because many Chinese and Japanese editors disrupt the article in order to add their Chinese-centered view and Japanese WW2-era delusion. If more administrators keep watching the article, socks/ povpushers will be decreased. please help me. --Historiographer (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I will put the article on my watchlist and keep an eye out for socks, but I do not have great knowledge of these historical issues so I can't take much of a stand in this current dispute; I will only be able to deal with much more obvious vandalism/POV-pushing/socking, etc. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The protection was based on what seemed to be a long history of ip vandalism, but in my opinion it was borderline as to whether the long term blp issues merited the semi protection or not, so I leaned on the side of caution due to it being a blp. So long as your happy that the page is watched enough not to result in any damage then im happy with your call to unprotect. :-) Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Picture of South Korea
I changed it cause the picture of the miracle on the Han river does not mean anything but it just looks like a chart. And, the picture I put was not just a pretty picture. They were symbols of South Korea and the miracle on the Han river. Han river of course and 63 building, Banpo bridge are iconic landmarks. And why do you talk to me as if you are in dominant situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamberikore (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What the...? Don't you see the picture you wanted to put?
I don't really understand what you want from me. But, I don't think I need to discuss about this if I replaced your favorite picture of the miracle on the Han river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamberikore (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring comment for Joseph.nobles
This issue is being acted on now. I figured I was posting it in the wrong way (and in the wrong place!), so feel free to delete my report about User:James von Brunn. :D --Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Per this edit, no worries on your comment on my standing! I normally sit to edit wp anyway...
Also, can you give a simple pronunciation for your name? I can't read/understand IPA so need baby-speak. Or you can continue to be thought of as R-janag! Bigger digger (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for the message! I have been seeing you around DYK more and more lately, so I look forward to continuing to work with you. And yes, editing WP from a sitting position is definitely the safest way to do it, and we always need to keep safety first...
As for Rjanag...the R sounds more or less silent (the word is Northern Monguor, but etymologically it comes from Tibetan, which has a lot of these word-initial "r"s that are not really an English [r]) and the rest is pronounced more or less like it looks, "janag" or "zhanag". Technically [ʨ] is palatal sound (the blade of your tongue sits close to, and pretty much parallel to, the top of your mouth) and ɢ is uvular (like an english [g], but the back of your tongue touches your uvula instead of your soft palate, so it's just a bit further back) but it's not much of a difference. (Some languages have contrast between [ɢ] and [g], but as an English speaker I can't even hear the difference, they all sound the same to me.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Rudely added wikilinks so I can understand a bit more. I think "janag" might be the way forward here..! Thanks, I look forward to working with you on DYK and maybe elsewhere along the way. Bigger digger (talk)
Suman Ranganath
Seriously i know her and her family. please remove the dubious tag. one of her official representative requested me to move the page to "Suman Ranganath". i moved the page on march, see [5]. her official website is http://sumanranganath.com/ (now defunct, it is expired on may). "Ranganathan" is a name credited in her tamil films (because Ranganathan is surname which most commonly used by tamils.) see this timesofindia source which mention her name as "Suman Ranganath" which is cleary not a dubious name. Mugur Chandra (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't know about OTRS system, i will soon contact her family on this issue. i will request her to give a press statement. now she is very busy in films. Mugur Chandra (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I can modify the lead sentence to have both, but I can't remove the tag just yet. To be honest, the tag should say "disputed" instead of "dubious" (because "dubious" makes it look like I'm casting a judgment on it, but I'm just trying to mark that the article is under dispute) and I am working right now on getting it changed. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sorry for late reply, i was reading the instructions about OTRS system. but i need some time, currently i am busy due to my hectic work schedules, i will be free only after this month. i need to visit her place (she is in Bangalore) just to contact her. but i won't give up in this issue, this is for sure. i will meet her on July first week. Mugur Chandra (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Nut Island effect
Is there a method of putting a DYK nom on hold? This is my first attempt, I can see that you have many questions, some of which I have failed to answer in my second response. I can answer them but it threatens to consume more space than may be normal on the DYK talk, so let me know how you want to proceed and I will be accommodating. Sswonk (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, was that really vandalizing? I was merely adding flavor to an argument. Ya know how you try to make a point, but you want to drive it home, so you say something like "cry me a river." See? No need to be a bully about it. Don't cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.145.220 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not "Self-Published"
Rjanag: I've returned my link to the article on the Voynich Manuscript (with slight shortening of description):
For one thing, my optical theory (proposing that the some of the Voynich cylinders are optical devices, such as microscopes) is not "self-published". My theory first appeared in Renaissance Magazine (Issue #53, March 2007). The website is an addendum to that, including further research and implications on the subject.
In addition, my theory appears in two other published books, the Claudio Foti book, "Codice Voynich", and "Fiona: Mysteries & Curiousities of Literary Fraud & Folly", Volume I, edited by W.J. Elvin (ISBN978-1440461552). By contrast, many of the links which are left (and which I think should be left, I am not arguing against their being there) are references to self-published books, and stand-alone websites. One of the major books on the subject, a very valuable resource, with a very controversial theory, is completely self-published at the author's expense. This is common in this particular field, I only point it out, again, because mine is one of the few theories in the last few years which is not self-published.
As for "pseudo-science", well by that standard, "we" all are. Experts in the fields of botany, astronomy, history, and on and on, all disagree with one another. They cite countless arguments, each backed up by "solid science", which absolutely shoot down the other theories. They cannot all be correct, they cannot all be correct science. The trouble is, we do not know which "science" to trust, or which known sciences or histories do apply to the Voynich problem. I do not, they do not. But the basis of my theory are sound, whether or not it turns out they apply in this case. The history of optics in the early 17th century, for one thing. The fascination with ancient mysterious cipher works, hermetic works, the Utopian societies, are all well established in the time frame I propose, by the people I propose influenced it. And there are precedents and co-incidents to my theory, in the time I propose. My theory is completely based on known sciences and histories, nothing had to be imagined or invented, except, as for everyone else's theory, the Voynich's possible place in it.
Don't be fooled by the momentum of the status-quo of Voynich research. It has been wrong twice longer than I have been alive... the answer has been sought in this traditional research, and the purveyors of these traditional views have not come one inch closer to any hope of an answer. The field needs other input, mine and others, to open new areas of possibilities. Yes, as long as they are based on what is known... and what is scientific and reasonable. Remember, all we know is that it is on vellum, and appeared to history about 1622. Everything else, and everyone else, is in the same boat as I am.
Anyway, I've looked carefully over the WP:EL rules since Dreamguy removed my link a few weeks ago, and I feel that my link meets all the criteria. If you have a specific point on that list you feel I do not meet, we can argue it in the appropriate forum... I'm sorry I do not know all the procedures, this whole area of wikipedia is somewhat unfamiliar to me... but we can both make our case before the appropriate authorities, if you still disagree. If not, please leave the link there. I not only feel it strictly follows the rules, it actually follows them better than most of the links remaining (which nonetheless, should remain). Thanks for your time, Rich SantaColoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.4.192 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it. I see here you have read WP:EL but don't understand why you think your personal website is an exception. It may well be that some of the other links should be removed, there certainly appear to be too many. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And I just looked into the publications you mention. The first is self-published, the second, where I've read the paragraph referring to your ideas, is also self-published. I agree the blog at [6] is fascinating, but everything you've written, or rather told us about, appears to be either your website or self-published books. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can't expect us all to be mind-readers. "Thanks" is not exactly a specific request. And regardless of whether or not you say the article should go to AfD, I say it should go to AfD. The rest will be sorted out in the discussion. Your time might be better spent going there and stating your case, rather than hanging around here finding fault with the way I listed it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've restored all 28 revisions of the article; when you're done and want to delete it again, you can just do it the same way you did before (by tagging it with {{db-author}}). Let me know if there's anything else you need! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you restored it with the db-author template, and someone else redeleted it, can you please re-restore it without the csd-template? Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Rjanag, strictly speaking you're right, the "disputed" tag is for articles. If you really dislike my use of the "disputed" tag I can create and apply a tag that says "the validity of this section of the guideline / policy is disputed" - i.e. a section-level version of the "disputed policy / guideline" tag. The points is that "under discussion" is misleadingly bland, since: the majority of current contributors disagree with the current wording's deletionist implications; reasonable evidence has been presented that NOTPLOT is not a legitimate guideline because it never gained any sort of consensus. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a "disputed selection of policy / guideline" tag would be used if it were placed in appropriate categories, and, more importantly, in the docs for the relevant "disputed" and policy / guideline tags. I can think of quite a few places where it would be useful. Just to save wasted effort, will you do it or shall I? I don't mind either way, it's mostly copy and paste - excpet I'd add an optional param for comment on the nature of the dispute - in the case of NOTPLOT, "whether the current version is supported by consensus". --Philcha (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the above user and the warning I issued, the warning was issued using Huggle. In this this instance I did not use {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} but rather used Huggle to issue a warning. My recollection was that I warned for editing tests, but upon reviewing it, I may have clicked the button accidentally when trying to drag down to editing tests. Incidentally I always make an effort to match the violation to the warning whether it be neutral point of view, spam, page blanking, vandalism, or editing tests. Thanks. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
FFXIII Use of Images
Personally I think it is important to reduce the amount of images, however I do believe that removing the 4 high quality images and leaving an extremely low-quality image is a flawed idea.
As we know, the 5th character in the E3 screenshot has little information for a full profile such as Lightning, Snow, Oerba and Sazh.
Removing the E3 would only be minor, where as removing the 4 renditions of the Fully Profiled main characters would damage a lot of work as well as the ability to allow people to fully alalyse the characters, where as the E3 shot is poor and only shows the characters faces where as the 4 pictures show their full renditions.
If you feelthe size of the Image gallery containing the 4 images and links to the larger images of the 4 Main "Stated" characters of FFXIII, please reply stating the the size of the gallery is too big, as this is easily changable.
P.S. from a different perspective,
What makes you think the quality of the E3 screenshot is more acceptable than links to 4 fully-fledged images, the gallery can be made smaller to seem more barable if you wish.
The whole idea of these images is for reference, the E3 screenshot is poor where as the 4 individual Pngs give an Entire prespective. The buety of the individual images is that the gallery on the Main article can be as small as we like while still giving a link to the Fully Sized ones, the E3 screenshot is the same size as it is on the Main article.
Plus the images in the gallery are not technically free licensed, they are used for promotional reasons, such as being publisised with information about the game, such as wikipedia articles. The Cosmo19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me Explain The Cosmo 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It was you who put it up for deletion, the person who did before you did not see the correct license tag 1st. The Cosmo21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have now stated it's reason to exist, it exists to give reference to the 5th character who has been shown within the E3 FFXIII Trailer of 2009, not much information is known, and thats why it's a very minor picture, if you would like me to reduce it's resolution then please leave me a message. The image itself gives Visual information about the character, and if that isn't evidential enough, the paragraph written next to the image gives instant reference to the image. I had not yet finished adding the image to the article since I began to get countless claims from people who snap at instant changes. But I got there as I do and as many do. The Cosmo21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry is I ever sounded rude,
I know you do not particularly like me very much, but can you please stop removing my gallery, It has a reason to exist. All of this was resolved on my talk page with a good friend who has the same position as you. The Cosmo21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag: Thanks for the note, have commented. Would you mind readding the deletion notices on the new file? I don't want to breach 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
When will we come to a consensus, considering that my 5th image was created by me using Square-Enix content from a promotional video. And I may edit the licensing tags on the other 4 from promotional to Non-Free 3D art as I originally intended to until being given advice from another wikipedia user to make it Promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCosmoX (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
OK I apologise about the 3 revert rule, but deleting the images is a bit hasty at this moment in time, plus, I would like to know who will be the person who deletes them if it comes to that.
I am Able to explain in as much detail as you like. To the Talk page! The Cosmo22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just written a new section to our discussion on FFXIII talk page, but I am currently having edit conflicts, Thank you for deleting the NORA 5th Character file as requested, I will now supply reasons for existance on the talk page once I am able to submit the new content. The Cosmo22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to my reply on the FFXIII talk page
Could you also specify a valid reason for why they are up for why you reverted my revision of using Text Based links rather than the Unapproved galleries? Thisis no longer making much sense as the Text Based links have nothing to do with the Section we have been discussing the use of the gallery on upon the talk page apart from the fact Text Based links have been proposed.
I feel that you are more dead set on deleting the images than helping towards a compromised solution. The Cosmo01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have not seen any speedy deletion tags placed on the files, nor any links to a new discussion page. The Cosmo No free equivalent.
Not as of yet, the game itself will be copyrighted for many years.
Respect for commercial opportunities. It is being used for an identicle purpose as to its original marketing role.
Minimal usage.
I wouldn't say less quality would convey the level of information these can, but of course this is one of the questioned.
The solution is within reason, by keeping the images uploaded within acceptable guidelines, such as the compromised Text Based links the fact that the images are large or because there are a few of them is within reason of that, they are individual pictures, for individual characters.
Again, text-based links to non-free images are not used in articles. This is not even a possible solution; it is never done on Wikipedia. If the images are not going to be displayed within an article, they cannot be displayed anywhere. How many times must I repeat myself? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Minimal extent of use.
Same applies here as for Minimal Use. With the exception of that the license permits high resolution use.
Previous publication.
Within an extremely vast amount of internet resources and various other media.
Content
To a scientific analytical degree.
There is nothing "scientific" about them, they are decorations. No one is trying to scientifically analyze these video game characters. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Media-specific policy
Yes, all of this was completed on submission.
One-article minimum
Yes, well, they were until they were removed by the person in question.
Significance
This has been discussed, their significance is to give complete visual reference as well as text based reference.
They are not significant, fair and square. They do not contribute understanding that text would not, and even if they did they aren't necessary in the article. It's easy enough just to have an external link in the bottom of the article, linking to a "site with images and screenshots of FFXIII characters". Finally, this is not the article about the characters, it's the article about the game. If you had read my FFD posting, you would know this. If there is ever an article about Lightning, then a picture like this might be acceptable. It's not acceptable, though, in an article about the game. You can search Wikipedia's featured articles about video games for hours, you will not find any video game articles that have images like this. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Why must we copy the styles of ever other wikipedia article, for consistency I'm sure, but in this case it would seem more of a shining example of the 'high definition revolution', preventing this sort of progress. Sticking to the principles of everything is nice, just because their is a difference does not mean we should do anything drastic. The Cosmo02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not about consistency or style. The reason other articles don't have images like that is because it's against copyright law, just as it would be in this article. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Restrictions on location.
Yes they were in an article, maybe NO_GALLERY would have been a better solution?
Image description page.
Yes the Files included all of the criteria for this.
The Cosmo02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is why there are non-free content criteria: non-free images are not a violation of copyright law if they satisfy some very stringent criteria. If they do not satisfy the criteria, then they are not allowed. Apparently you have read through WP:NFCC without really understanding its underlying message. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please Notify me if you prefer deleting them earlier than requested, this is good practice to avoid misconduct. The Cosmo14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that you broke Template:ffd2, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_15, the first entry has a section title with the link just like all the entries for June 14, but the ones below have a broken title instead of having no link. I think that I have fixed it, and new entries on the list should appear like you intended. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks like I (and PassportGuy) were confused about your intentions, since you had taken it to ffd...to be honest, I was in a hurry and didn't even notice your name, I had assumed it was posted there by a newbie who didn't know about db-author. Would you like me to restore the file?
It might be better to post a question somewhere other than ffd (I'm not sure where that would be, though), because I think once people are in ffd they'll have a knee-jerk reaction, like I did, to just delete. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm...I thought I had restored it, but it seems to have only restored the file description and not the file itself. I'll have to ask a more image-savvy admin to take a look. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Final Fantasy XIII. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Leave everthiing the way it is for now, I will be offline for a while to get some sleep. I will notify you when I'm online again. BTW, you don't have PSN by any chance?
Speak to you later, and please leave everything for now. The Cosmo04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Since I know you love removing suspicious files, here is a treat for you to delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FFXIII_Characters*.png
Don't thank me. This image is no longer required on wikipedia (or never was under circumstances). The Cosmo 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please add the images information to XCosmoX/Image data as you have done with the previous 4. You may delete now. Be sure to refer to the FFXIII talk page to see the current discussions progress. The Cosmo17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We can discuss it now. The best thing to do would probably be for you to leave a message at the reliable sources noticeboard. Just explain that you used that source in an article but another editor questioned its reliability, so you'd like another opinion about it (and give a link to the site). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have nominated Ottawa language for Featured Article on June 5th, at Ottawa language. So far there has been very little feedback, and I have the impression that language-related articles don't fare all that well at FA. I think the content is of high quality and it meets the FA criteria, but one of the reviewers has indicated it needs copyediting. I appreciated your work for the Good Article review - would you be willing to take a run through and either copyedit or make suggestions? Or suggest someone else who would be willing/able to copyedit? Thanks. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look within the next 2-3 days. I think you're right that language-related articles often don't get a lot of attention; I think people are intimidated by them. But also be patient; I remember when I had Street newspaper at FAC a couple months ago it was about 2 weeks before I started getting a lot of comments, I think they're always backlogged. (That being said, it is still good to seek out comments, because sometimes articles get failed just for not getting commented on enough, even if there are no "oppose"s.) From what I remember, the article is very well-researched and is an excellent resource on Ottawa, so I don't anticipate having any problems supporting it once I've done a second read-through to check for copyediting issues. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
you added a commnet in Jan 2009 about cleaning up the Aphasiology article. If you could do that in the very near future I may help me sort a few issues with regard the dyslexia project.
There are two existing articles which seem to overlap dyslexia and aphsia Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and Alexia without agraphia. I have very little knowledge of Aphasia but we seem to have adopted these two articlew into the dyslexia project, so could you help define how Aphasia contrbutes to these types of Dyslexia
I'll take a look. Before I got much chance to work on aphasia I got busy with User:Rjanag/To do list, so I'll have to check back on it. Off the top of my head, all I know is that alexia (acquired dyslexia) has been a topic of some aphasia studies because it has implications for single-route vs. dual-route models of lexical processing. Alexia without agraphia is, as far as I know, not discussed a whole lot in the field (at least, it's not a "hot topic"). In general, though, I think the connection to aphasiology is pretty clear for both of these conditions—they each appear to result from brain damage. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
David Straitjacket
hmm... I see your point. I met David a good while ago and we discussed the condition. So I know my edit is factual. He is also happy with it being public knowledge. But that is the only reference I can find. Not sure how to get around this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The vegan one is pretty easy though. He has mentioned it quite a few times in interviews ect. He was up for an award as 'Vegan of the year 2008' as well.
I'm new to creating pages on wikipedia. You just deleted my addition "Ottawa Ukraina". I was trying to put information on there for my local soccer team, and grabbed the information from our website. I cited where the information came from at the bottom of my page, but i guess that wasn't good enough. What do i need on there so that if i copy an article from my website, my wikipage won't get deleted?
You can't copy text from another website into Wikipedia; you have to use other websites just as a source. So, for example, if the website has a long history of your team, you can't copy it, you can just summarize it and leave a footnote explaining where the information came from (with a link to the website). See the Wikipedia tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article for more about how to do this.
For more information on how to cite sources without violating copyright, see this helpful dispatch.
Finally, before you re-create the article, make sure you have read What Wikipedia is not. This will help you understand Wikipedia's content guidelines. If you do not follow these guidelines, your article might be deleted even if it is not a copyright violation. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't know how to add a fair-use rationale.
I have finals this week. Which means that studying has been kicking in to overtime recently. Especially because I've already taken two exams. As such, I have been greatly holding back on the amount of time I spend on this site and have barely been checking my talk page. I apologize for not addressing this issue more immediately, and ask that you understand that I am more than a little busy at the moment. Speaking of which, my break's almost over. But I can assure you that once Friday rolls around this problem will not crop up again. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'dTalk to me! • Admire my handiwork!18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
copyright of WORK
Hello,
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [7], [8], [9].
I also published that work under the free license, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. For reference please see my website http://kallar.weebly.com.
I have also send mail to wikipedia for copyleft statement.
I would like to start that article again please tell me if it is against laws of wikipedia, also help me to improve that article.
Ok, I assume you're talking about N.P Manicham Errthaandaar. I did not delete the article because of copyright issues, I deleted it because it's about a real person and doesn't explain why that person is notable; Wikipedia has a notability guideline and you are not allowed to write articles about anyone unless you can demonstrate that they have been the focus of significant coverage in other sources (for example, major newspapers). If you intend to write the article again, you need to read WP:Notability and WP:Your first article so that you will know how to do it without violating guidelines. When you are ready, don't start the article in its article page, but do it at User:Rajnwiki/N.P. Manicham Errthaandaar, a page in your userspace; you can use that location to prepare the article, and once you think it's ready you can ask me to move it to article space.
Also, even if you hold the copyright for your website, you cannot simply copy your website into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with its own style guidelines, and does not accept text copied from other places. Anything you write for a Wikipedia article needs to be new writing. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Arilang say Hi
If you are interested in this discussion, please leave some comments.
I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above.
I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind).
The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexiathe talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.
Thanks so very much Rjanag. I'm greatly grateful for all the support, help, and assistance you've offered me in my RfA. Of course you know that this adds you to the short list of people I can bother with silly questions don't you? (I'm probably going to have to have an "opt-out" program for that ... lol. Thank you though, I really appreciate it. ;) — Ched : ? 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
I would like to suggest that you have a slight redesign for you Linguistic Barnstar. Also, can you please comment on the other barnstars, Biography Barnstar, World War Barnstar and Children's Literature Barnstar as well? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Thank you very much for your attention. Kayau (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"BE+ING" and "HAVE+EN"
I don't understand why you have reverted my request for citations in Grammatical aspect.
You say that term "HAVE+EN" refers to constructions such as "have eaten"; that's clear enough, in fact it's the only example that the article gives.
But, as far as I know, it's also perfectly equivalent to any verb used in the present perfect, including regular ones that make their participle with -ed, such as "have talked". Or is there something special about strong verbs that have participles in -en? If so, then that's not at all clear in the article.
The article never mentions those two terms again, so it's not using them as "utility terms" to tag things later in the text: it's actually claiming they're widespread linguistic terms. Google doesn't confirm that.
be +ing, I know, is very common (someone I have worked closely with does a lot of research in acquisition of progressive aspect, and her papers talk about be +ing all the time). I'm less familiar with have +en, but it makes perfect sense. Also, if you're concerned about how much it's used, the first and fifth hits in this search both use it.
If you're concerned about the use of -en rather than -ed, you could easily add (or "HAVE +ED") to the article. But HAVE +EN is a perfectly fine description of perfect or experiential aspect and should probably remain--to be honest, I think it helps a non-linguistic reader understand what's being talked about, by giving a concrete example. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry, but I'm still skeptical. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm not a native English speaker, but if I saw this "HAVE+EN" term standing by itself, I'd wonder what on earth it might be about. With "HAVE+ED", I'd probably get it, since -edis after all the current regular past participle ending, while -en is only found in a small number of strong verbs.
Besides, you say yourself that you've not quite familiar with "HAVE+EN" as a term; it might make perfect sense (and I'm not sure it does, at least opposed to "HAVE+ED"), but if it's a made-up term, it's a made-up term regardless.
What the constructions are about is perfectly clear in the articles from the examples themselves, without having to "stick a name" to them that's not even used to refer to them later.
If these terms exist and are used by linguists, I'd like sources for them.
Neither did I, merely a need to source it. I'm not entirely happy with the sources you gave, since they merely mention the forms in passive (and in the case of "have+en", invariably and conveniently give "eaten" as an example - although I couldn't access the one source you specifically pointed to about "have+en"). But I guess I can live with it. Note that I wouldn't add "have+ed" (even though it somehow "makes more sense" to me personally) without sources to back it up - if "have+en" is the one being used by linguists, then that is it.
On as sidenote, though, if "have+en" and not "have+ed" is indeed the term most often used, which apparently it is, it's interesting to wonder why, given -ed is the regular ending. Perhaps it's just to distinguish it from the simple past form (which is also -ed in regular verbs), or perhaps the "underlying" past participle form for most native English speakers is still -en (which is pretty current in other Germanic languages), maybe due to the fact that many very often used verbs employ it? Just curious about it.
Also, what do you think about putting a "respectively" at the end of the sentence rather than "for the first" and "for the second" in parentheses, which seem a bit heavy on the text?
I noticed you reverted this edit I made to The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. I understand that the correct spelling of the name is "McNinja", but sort keys don't always use the correct spellings. One of the places where they don't is names that start with "Mc" or "Mac": see the last bullet item here for the explanation. I'll admit that I don't like this particular practice,
And don't feel bad -- I did the same thing before I learned about this, and I'm sure many more people will, too! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I do not work on the List of Prisons articles. Also, don't hold me responsible for the nomenclature or spelling that the LRF uses. That's not my problem. Besides, Google Maps is not very well-developed for China, it's not surprising that some names don't automatically show up when you type them in. If you want to know the exact location, don't just type in the name from the Wikipedia list; go to the source, where they have probably given a full address. You can use that to figure out where the place is and link it accordingly. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, this source is not the only mention of a "Danxian" in Hainan. See, for example, Tai peoples, where one of the sources mentions it. It's probably just an unusual spelling. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and here we go. "Danxian" is just an alternate (or possibly incorrect) name for the city of Danzhou. See zh:儋县 (note where it redirects to). As for Wumaping, it is in Leshan, just like the report says. A little bit of research on your part and we could have avoided this waste of time. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it solves the problem. But you're not suggesting any solutions, you're just coming to whine and waste everyone's time. We already know the article relies on one source; I said you are welcome to add more sources or make changes to the article. Have you done anything constructive at all? No, you're just hanging around bitching and wasting my time. Is there actually anything specific you intend to do, or are you just here to pick a fight? The answer is pretty clear to me. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone the long way from German Wikipedia to tell you your mistakes. Therefore I'm not interested in every detail. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS: The list of prisons should also be united.
Hello, per m:Meta:Requests for deletion#User:Zhoroscop I've speedy deleted his page and added the new domain to the global blacklist. I wonder if it is possible to speedy delete his page locally or I have to open an MxD for this. I think the case is pretty clear that this user is using the WMF projects as a venue to self-promote and as a personal webhost. Best regards and thanks for reporting. —df| 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC) If it is possible to leave me a {{talkback}} on my page I will be grateful. I'm not so active on enwiki as I would like to be... :( —df|08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I can speedy his page here since he is somewhat active on en-wiki (even if it's mostly junk and vandalism) and his page doesn't fall within en-wiki's speedy deletion requirements. But I could mfd it, although I don't know if it's necessary (again, since he's a somewhat active user here...even if he's not a valuable user. I've seen people allowed to link to their youtube and myspace pages, etc., as long as they are also making edits to the article namespace.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your message. Well, he created the same page across several wikis, linking to his meta account which I don't know why I have unblocked... but if he continues his account and all his other socks will be globally locked... Best regards, —df|10:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wow, that's a lot of spam. I know how to get those deleted on zh-wiki and fr-wiki, but for the rest I don't speak the language so I wouldn't know how to go about tagging, etc. Do you know if there's a centralized location where an agreement can be reached to delete the page across all projects? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, m:SRSD is the stewards page for cross-wiki speedy deletion requests, but they will delete the page only in wikis where the sysop activity is too low or there is no sysop at all, the rest must be tagged with {{delete}} and wait... (I did that in april) F.Y.I. the account has been globally locked, there are more details at m:WM:SBL#User:Zhoroscop again if you like to see. Best regards, —df|11:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at my account unblock. I have made a new request could you possibly look at it again? Tanks Wes
AN3 comments
That comment is addressed to both of you, although I consider you more disruptive. Two reverts is not unusual, although they should be clearly labeled, feel free to cite me on that. Trying to get your content opponent blocked with wikilawyering is quite disruptive, please don't try such tricks in the future. It's good that you are both talking on article's talk, and it's good that you started the discussion; please assume good faith and try to reach a consensus that way. You are both experienced and respected editors and I hope you can work out your issues peacefully. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry if I caused any trouble to the South Korea article, but as you notice from my username I am obsessed with Korean Dramas and I know my stuff. Thus, the show is called Autumn Tale/A Tale of Autumn etc. , but not Autumn Fairy Tale.
Again, I am very sorry, but I hope you understand.
PS I just joined wikipedia three weeks ago, so I'm new to this stuff.
I spotted you tag this article on my watchlist, and have jumped in and improved the article as much as I can, but sourcing it appears to be difficult, whoever added that information has probably got it from an offline source. The abbey section shouldn't be too hard to source, but I'm uncertain about the history section, should we remove it? I'll expand the article to other aspects of the settlement as and when I find bits and pieces (I have absolutely no connection with this place, I just have most UK places on my watchlist!). Thanks Jenuk1985 | Talk20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; I was planning on doing a last sweep through the canada hooks to verify/reject any leftovers this afternoon, but I was in class all morning.
As for the update times, I think we can just use Chicago to approximate the Canada times? Chicago +1 for Ontario/Quebec, Chicago -2 for British Columbia, etc. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Time for Toronto is UTC-5, and I've listed the updates in the queue accordingly. The First Canada Day update should appear roughly on time, assuming I did the math correctly ... Gatoclass (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the first one will appear about 2 1/2 hours prior to July 1. Not ideal, but close enough I think ... Gatoclass (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For the future, you can use the custom parameters to temporarily add a time zone:
{{Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes |customname=Toronto |customshift=-5 hours}}
Hello, I thought you might be a good person to ask about this. Some recent DYKs seem to have been commonly viewed yet they are not on this list. Here, here, here, here and here are some examples of what I mean. Maybe I am not reading it correctly but are they good enough? Will they be added if they are or is it OK to add them myself or is someone else supposed to do it? I am just curious and am not sure who controls the list so thought I would ask who I should tell about this. --candle•wicke21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Nope, no one controls them; Cbl62 and some others used to be working on filling it in, but I think it got to be too much, and in general anyone's free to add their own if it got enough hits (over 5,000, I believe). I usually check my DYKs a couple days after they're up and, in the rare case that one got that many hits, I add it myself; you are also free to add any you find.
There was recently a discussion at WT:DYK (I don't have the link handy) about this, and I suggested adding a sentence to the DYK award thing that user talkpages get to say something like "if your page gets enough hits, feel free to add it to WP:DYKSTATS(here's how to check)". rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, I wasn't sure and didn't want to be the cause of any bad mess over there. Thanks for replying. :D --candle•wicke21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Would we be able to find a CC or GFDL image, or request permission for one, to improve the article? There are a number of places to search, such as flickr, where amateurs may have photographed people in public. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I searched flickr for a while and found nothing free; for some people I searched (like Stephen Chow) there were nice non-free images that I could request permission for, but for Zhang Yuqi I don't remember (most of it was just images people copied from somewhere on the internet). Not surprisingly, we are short on pictures for most Asian celebrities, since most en-wiki users aren't from there...even pretty huge ones like Cecilia Cheung and Xu Jinglei are missing photos! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, a username block seems somewhat harsh. I'm aware of what you are concerned about, but I am unconvinced whether a straight up block was the right idea, especially since the user has been communicative? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Indef is fine with me—assuming that "indef" means "until he changes his name", not "forever". The user, while being a bit of a dick, looks like he's starting to be ready to work cooperatively and follow guidelines, and could be a constructive user, so once the username is changed I think he should be allowed to edit again. Also his argument about the talk page guidelines and stuff made me aware that the guideline page really doesn't say anything about how we shouldn't edit archives (I'm going to suggest an addition this afternoon when I have some free time), so in a way he has already done something constructive. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question for you regarding DYK hook. The required hook length should not be over 200 characters, but does it include "*...that" or "(pictured)?" ?--Caspian blue23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I think usually "that" and the question mark are counted, "..." is not, and "(pictured)" is debateable; I usually count it because it's a pain to leave it out of the count, but if a hook is borderline I might leave it out, or if there is extra text inside the parentheses (for example, (flag of Kazakhstan pictured) ) then I'll count the extra. Also, you count the characters in the actual text, not the wiki-text in the edit window (so you don't count formatting like [[Example|this example]]). The easiest way to count is to paste the hook into this counter.
I'm not sure which hook you're looking at, but as far as I can tell the Zhang Yuqi hook is 142 characters (including (pictured)) and the Psycho Donuts one is around 160. Oops, I just realized you're not necessarily asking about one of my hooks. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thanks Rjanag for the detailed reply. I reviewed Hyperion (Longfellow), and if I exclude "(pictured) and "...that" from the alternative hook suggested by the nominator, the hook characters are counted as "195", if not, it has 214 characters, so I needed a correct rule on hook. Shubinator, you have a very good tool for that!-Caspian blue00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Auto archiving
Hey Rjanag, I thought you may be interested in this:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 0
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = User talk:Rjanag/Archive%(counter)d
}}
Just add it to the top of your page and it'll save much time. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I've thought about doing this, but I also kind of like having control...specifically, it allows me to avoid archiving threads that I haven't dealt with yet or have been procrastinating about (for example, the Ashley thread at the top of this page has been sitting there for a week or two waiting for me to do something about it). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs06:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As to "Since the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone"- The reverting stopped because I didn't want to break the 3rr rule. Apparently that was error, because you now tell us, in effect, that 3rr is merely advisory: it won't be enforced if it would "prevent [the editor violating the rule] from participating in the discussion." The practical effect, whether you think you're endorsing it or not, is that the version preferred by an editor who broke the rules trumps objections to it made by those who make a good faith effort to stay within the rules. What is the process to appeal your call? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Yuqi, 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.
I don't really care what he does on his own talk page. Just ignore it. The issue here is the article, not his talk page. What you need to do is start a section of the talk page explaining why you disagree with his edit; continuing to revert at the article is useless. Once that talk page discussion is started, both of you should be going there rather than reverting; if people continue reverting instead of discussing, either or both of you could be blocked. I have no reason to block the other user, th ough, if you haven't started a discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. In the future, please don't canvass other editors in a dispute like you did here. If you are having a content dispute at some article, go to one of the appropriate pages (WP:Third opinion, WP:AN3, a WikiProject, etc.) to report the problem, don't just leave a message with some random editor. I have not been involved in editing the Jimmy Wales page and I have no idea why you chose to message me; when you left your first message I didn't even know what you were talking about. If you are going to seek input from other editors, you need to at least explain what the problem is. Please keep these things in mind in the future. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If there is consensus to include something, but not consensus on how it ought to be included, there isn't consensus on its inclusion. Let me put the question in more functional terms: in what circumstances, or after what period of time, will I not incur a 3RR or "edit warring" block for reinserting the quote?
Just saying "when there's consensus" isn't an answer. Without some quantification of what constitutes sufficient consensus, your claim that I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes" starts to look like the Obama rhetorical strategy of saying you're for doing X in principle, but then setting up so many caveats and obstacles to doing X that doing X is, in practical terms, impossible. You suggest getting additional opinions, but (mindfull of WP:CANVAS) I have used the 3d opinion process several times before, and it is a crapshoot whether one gets from it little input or no input at all. Weeks can go by before we get additional input.
And even if/when additional input that supports inclusion is forthcoming, you still leave me in an untenable situation. What is the threshold is for having achieved "consensus"? Without knowing where the line is, no matter how many more users endorse my position, I still can't risk putting the material back, lest you block me, citing your decision about Garcia's 3RR violation. The practical upshot is not that "[h]e gets 'the last word' for a day or so while we discuss things at the talk page," but rather, that "[h]e gets 'the last word'" for the indefinite future, unless someone else, by sheer chance or by my (inappropriate) request, inserts the same quote.
It doesn't stop there, either. It isn't clear how broadly your warning sweeps: am I on notice for any reverts (or anything that can be so characterized) at Clarence Thomas, or just for the sections at issue in yesterday's controversy? By imposing this amorphous standard that maximizes your discretion, you have effectively issued me a topic ban on Clarence Thomas for having the temerity to report someone for breaking the rules and lacking the courtesy to violate them myself.
Lastly, it is grossly inappropriate that this issue is being brushed under the rug at a talk page. It amounts to an allegation of administrator misconduct, and whether I'm in the wrong or you are, this is an issue that ought to be aired at AN or one of its sub-boards. Since talk pages are not private fora, I am therefore boldly copying your comment and my response to a subsection of the AN debate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You originally posted at AN saying you just wanted a third opinion on the AN3, which is what you got. If you are wanting to accuse me of administrator misconduct, you are welcome to do so, start a new thread somewhere, be my guest. You can even insist that I be desysopped if you like. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Your desire to suspend a sword of damocles over my head and then duck questions about the propriety of that decision or under what circumstances I can avoid it being dropped on me is hardly a good reason to allow you to sweep the question under the rug. Quite the contrary. The more arbitrary and discretion-conferring an administrative action, the stronger the need for it to be broadly reviewed. What's more, your self-evident displeasure at being asked to justify and delineate the application of your decision (for example, telling me to "go fuck [my]self") strengthens the case yet further, since a reasonable observer might think future actions you take against me motivated by spite if these concerns are not resolved ex ante. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't be taking future actions against you; admins don't block people they have a history with. Get out of here and find something else to do. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator you should know better than telling users to go fuck themselves. It really makes us all look bad when our fellow admins cannot follow Wikipedia's basic requirements of civility. Chillum22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, what makes you all look bad is that you'd have blocked or at the very least threatened to block a regular editor for having said that. --MalleusFatuorum01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You're a regular editor, and you've gotten away without blocks after saying things just as bad. So we're all potty-mouths, oh well, whatever. I'm not losing any sleep over it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Rjanag has demonstrated quite well that he is not quick with the blockhammer and use it only when it is strictly necessary. I also think he knows full well that he crossed the line there and that he won't do it again. So again there is no need for a block, as blocks are not used punitively.·Maunus·ƛ·01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In the AN/I thread about you doubt is being expressed about whether you realize that telling editors to "go fuck themselves" is unacceptable behaviour. I myself believe that you are aware of this and have all intentions of not repeating that behaviour, but other editors are less sure. You might want to clarify your stance however just to remove any possibilities of stains on your integrity.·Maunus·ƛ·02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I realize that coming from me it will mean virtually nothing, but I have weighed in at the same thread to oppose a block. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
lol
"Sorry, girls, but this photo isn't a poster, and this article isn't your bedroom wall..."
Sorry about using this page like this to message you, I couldn't find a forum page but would like to raise some points. Since you were listed as an active user it looked like the best place to raise questions.
1) There are several languages listed on the main page. Why isn't Mandarin listed among them?
2) Mandarin should be listed among them as it is one of 6 International languages used at the U.N..
Also Mandarin represents a user base of possibly 2 billion, why has no effort to translate been done?
3) Hindi should also be listed among them as it contains 1.2 Billion users, why has no effort to translate been done either?
4) It has been years since Wikipedia's presence on the internet. These two critical languages should be featured by now. But they are not. Meanwhile all major European languages with far less users are featured. Is this intentional or a geo-politically motivated statement of some sort?
Other than that, no problems with Wikipedia for now, it is a very informative and helpful tool which is mostly accurate. Keep it up! But address these issues!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.38.158 (talk)
I believe it's because Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have that many articles and isn't well-developed yet (probably partly because of the Great Firewall). Wikipedia has no "staff" and doesn't choose how much a certain language wiki is developed, it's all done by volunteers, so we don't have any direct control over how much work people are putting into zh-wiki. You'll notice that Japanese wiki is listed on the front page, because there are a lot more people working on this.
The List of Wikipedias by article count has the Chinese Wikipedia as the twelve largest. The languages surrounding the logo are the 'Top 10' in alphabetical order, and you'll find that Chinese Wikipedia is under the 100,000+ articles list again in English alphabetical order. In order to get in the Top 10, Chinese Wikipedia would have to overtake Sweden and Russia. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep -- the languages that are put on the front of Wikipedia aren't determined by how many speakers they have worldwide, but how well-developed that language's Wikipedia site is. It's unfortunate that Chinese is not there, but we can't just add it because we think it's an important language (where would we draw the line? what about when other languages start showing up and saying "but we're important too?). It is a shame, of course, but all we can do is hope that more Chinese speakers will take an interest in editing zh-wiki (if the PRC government changed its attitude towards Wikipedia that would also help; as it is, most editors of zh-wiki are people living outside of China); I would help out with that but my Chinese is not good enough for encyclopedia writing, I can only read articles there and do gnomish minor fixes. Of course, one of the main problems has always been that English Wikipedia sucks away most of the talent that could be used for other language Wikipedias...because it is perceived as the "best" Wikipedia and the only one worth using, we have thousands of non-native speakers of English struggling to edit here (and having most of their edits reverted because their English isn't good enough to communicate here) when they could be so much more productive if they edited at their own language's Wikipedia, which needs them badly anyway. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your concerns about my username
Hi Rjanag. Thank you for the concern about my username, but I can't imagine how it would be seen as an attack. Could you clarify? Linguistixuck (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall the exact origin of this username since I created it four years ago (admittedly, I created this account for vandalism, although I have been a good faith contributor for some time now). I wouldn't object to changing the "x" to a "k" if that would be better. Linguistixuck (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The riots are in no way shown to be connected to the ETIM (independence movement). Connections with the ETIM are being supported by the Chinese government, and all sources connected with ETIM are denying their involvement. Having the information in that article is potentially misleading and violates NPOV. Also, there are plenty of new sources becoming available all the time (the NYT, for example, just put up an article a little bit ago), so please remove the speedy delete tag. I'd be expanding it now if I wasn't talking to you (I mean that in a good way - I appreciate your efforts, I'd just rather spend my time expanding the article). Otebig (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your logic for keeping it there is incorrect. See my response on the AFD for a bit more detail, and please address that before undoing my edits. I study Central Asia politics, and while I know expertise doesn't count on Wikipedia, I'm mentioning it just to beg a tiny bit of AFG that I'm familiar with the complex underlying reasons why keeping it on ETIM is a pro-POV decision. Otebig (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, we keep edit conflicting each other :). I'm not getting the independence movement and the islamic movement confused. Again, see above, I am quite familiar with these issues and know which is which. Anyway, if you could, hold off on all this for a little bit and give me time to edit the article itself instead of the AFD and your talk page. Otebig (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your note about the other sandbox article. Yeah, merge them, that sound good. Thanks! Otebig (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The POV issue is still there, though. Will you update the ITN to the new article, and then we can make a link to the new article in the See also section of the ETIM article (as in now down for the 2008 Uyghur unrest article?) Just saw what your wrote on my talk page. Sounds good. Otebig (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again, but the main page still links to the ETIM article. I saw the ITN template was updated, but why hasn't the main page link changed? I emptied my cache and checked on several other machines/browsers, they all go to the ETIM article still. Otebig (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK preparation
Hi again, can you move one of the preparations to queue five so I can do another queue please? I'm on a roll! :D --candle•wicke03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh, ITNs are always generating a bit of a fuss... usually from people unwilling to assist in the general running of the section. --candle•wicke03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm off to class now t hough....so I'll have to rely on you to be the defender of the wiki! ;) (just kidding, don't worry...there are so many eyes on that article right now that any vandalism of POV-pushing will be reverted very quickly). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs
I think probably...in the past consensus has been not to expand April-fools-like exceptions, since there are so many holidays that might start asking for them. Other people at the DYK talk page might disagree, but personally my vote would be just to run it now. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
hi again... still on that Urumqi-article, eh? I'm not familiar with with Chinese... Simplified/Traditional -- why does one date have only 2009, the other only 7.05? Seb az86556 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In mainland China, it is common practice to write dates like 7.05, where it is MONTH (dot) DATE. This represents "the 5th of July". The other form is 2009年7月, which is "Year 2009, Month 7" (which is "July 2009")). Different places may have different conventions. Just like in America, we have aluminum-framed colormotorcars, and in Britain, we have aluminium-chassis colourautomobiles. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
somebody opened the "terrorism"-debate in a separate string again, was removed for trolling, yells (bold print) and all that. I was trying to tell him/her to join the ongoing discussion to no avail... any advice? thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably better to leave it and just ignore them. Unfortunately, we've reached the point now where the hordes of netizens are descending upon the article and you can't expect everyone you talk to to be a rational human being. It was nice during the first few hours of this when all the editors working on the article were intelligent people and willing to discuss things; now, as with all "hot topics", it's getting eaten up by simple-minded nationalists (on both from both sides, not just one or the other) who are interested in nothing other than arguing for their own viewpoint. Hopefully within a few days the interest in editing this article will have subsided from them.
In the meantime, I'm just trying to focus on the most problematic things in the article (see, for example, the new section I added to the talk page) and concentrate my energy on dealing with that, rather than the Sisyphysian battle to keep trolling off the talk page. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
back to real editing, shall we :)
here's a snippet from the Urumqi article/Causes (2nd paragraph)
...chairman of the Xinjiang regional government, said in a televised speech on the morning of 6 July that the movement came after a conflict between Uygur and...
"Movement"? I have no idea what that word refers to. Is that even sensible English? Fix it if you can, 'cause I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get to this; I tried to clean it up here, how does that look?
You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. In particular, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. ¡Muchas gracias! - Minkus (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Psycho Donuts
On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psycho Donuts, 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.
I modified the Psycho Donuts article because I thought 'massive head trauma' should not be referred to as a mental illness. (One could argue that it is the cause of some mental illnesses but is that sort of like saying that a car crash is a type of a broken leg?)
Anyway, if you agree with me, you may wish to change the DYK entry, which contains the most explicit reference to MHT as a mental illness.
Prep areas have been full for about 24 hours. Can you move them to Queues 3 and 4 so I can do some more to avoid a panic tomorrow? --candle•wicke00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick - do you think "that a scene in a lake in Skins episode" would be better if it was changed to "that a lake scene in Skins episode"? --candle•wicke02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good catch; I'll change it. Usually I try to copyedit and trim the hooks as I move them, but I just sort of hurried through these ones. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello,Rjanag! I am very glad to receive your message. It is not me who changed the paragraph a lot. But I think we'd better pay more attention to the other two users. Perhaps they are in a war now. It is not very good for wiki. Best wishes! --Sadmovie (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you and reverted my own revert. I got my back up over some rhetoric used in the comments and misread the changes. I went back over the reliable sources, went back over my own edits and put everything back except for changing the word mistake to error, which I believe is more neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Will you please investigate this a little bit more. I know your busy, but its an easy case by looking at the talk. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am not really interested in reading all the discussion archives and determining who's "right"; like I said at the 3RR page, Wikipedia policy is that you must not revert without consensus, no matter how right you are. You should present your arguments at the talk page, and seek extra input and third opinions at WT:3O or relevant WikiProject pages. No matter how wrong you believe the others are, you do not have the right to edit war. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I will try the Third Option. It is difficult to fix an article if there are three or four editors who are unified in their original research. Osprey9713 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate your looking into this. The "original research" charge is baloney, btw. I know you're not interested in content disputes, so I won't bore you with the details. But if we can get Osprey to work with the process instead of hammering things through, we might be able to help him get most of his information into the sections to which it applies (instead of overwriting other material in the wrong sections). But first -- we have to get him to follow the process.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My edit to John Calvin's page technically was vandalism but it was also his 500th birthday and people should know that! I figured it would be reverted in two seconds, which it was. Now it is just more things that they can use against me in order to control some very biased material on the Rapture page. I appreciate your sympathy though. I realize that every page on wikipedia has a group of editors who are very passionate about the page, and often have a very biased opinion about what it should say on that page. Similar to wikipedia's criticism that its just an online game. I was hoping to have the page corrected, but I don't think that will happen until more people start to read what the page says, and realize this is not what people believe the rapture will be like. I think more and more people are abandoning belief in a rapture, and that is why this page has been able to fall into disrepair by these few editors. Osprey9713 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:Non-free images on July 2009 Ürümqi riots
I'll keep an eye on it. If images come back, I will revert and join the discussion. Feel free to message me if I'm being slow. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted some of the other user's other edits, but I am not happy continuing. I do not want to get involved in the editing of the article itself at this time, (and I have a horrible feeling I have reverted some edits that were sound) I am only happy to remove the images. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You're going to have to review his contributions- I have no idea if they are legitimate, POV-pushy or what, and I am certainly not in the mood to investigate. I have asked the user to stop using the images, and I hope they will comply. I'm sorry if this whole approach seems very meek- I'm normally much more forceful with this stuff, I guess you just got me at a bad time... J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries, it's completely understandable, and you're right that this is a pretty sticky situation. I'll try to take a look at his contribs soon. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Useless editor"
Please watch it with the personal attacks -- while that's not as bad as the ones CH was tossing back at you, it's still quite a bit over the line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. For trolls like ChinaHistorian, sometimes you just have to ignore them. Don't let your fury to respond with personal attacks, the response may be report by the troll to intendedly get you blocked. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, guys. You are right, of course; even when a troll clearly deserves it, there's no need for more attacks. What I always tell other editors is "if an editor is so obviously a jerk that everyone will know the moment they see it, then you don't need to waste your energy pointing out how much of a jerk he is"... this time I forgot to follow my own advice! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For all the hard work...
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For keeping July 2009 Ürümqi riots as accurate and NPOV as possible, especially when the POV-pushers from both sides descended.
I thought I left another message on your talk page back on the 6th, but looking now it seems to have not saved. Anyway, thank you much for the barnstar, and you deserve one for the excellent work on the riot page - you've been keeping everything running quite smoothly, in spite of your language classes. I can't imagine how little sleep you're getting right now. I'm doing language classes too, at Indiana's summer program. I'm currently in the Central Eurasian Studies department there, finishing up an MA degree. Where were your working as a research assistant (and where are you studying Uighur)? Otebig (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried to revert the vandalism but another editor reverted it first. Anyways, you may want to take a look at the vandalism edit by User:Whitetrashfraud. The changed link seems to link to ChinaHistorian, the blocked editor. I suspect Whitetrashfraud is probably a sockpuppet of ChinaHistorian. Can anyone with checkuser right check if they're sockpuppets of not? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the moment I saw that edit I blocked the user (there's more similarities than just that; the username is a reference to CH's earlier post, and several hours ago CH posted saying he would "continue fighting until Rjanag reveals his true colors"). According to the duck test, they are clearly the same user. I did file a checkuser, though, because I am sure he will continue editing under other new accounts, and we will need to be able to deal with them. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured out the user was already blocked after I leave the message suspecting that sockpuppet. Now we know that there's a tough and problematic vandal that may create another account again and again. The vandal even set up a blog telling that our actions are "white fraud." (To be honest, I'm not even white) Also, thanks for dealing with the troll/vandal. Not everyone can respond to annoying troll like him/her. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...I was expecting that blog to be created, he threatened it hours ago (see User:Rjanag/ChinaHistorian, where I've started saving links and diffs for if we ever have get some serious intervention on this). I'm content for now, though, since he hasn't attempted to publish any personal information (not that he has much available on us anyway).
As for dealing with him...I should probably try taking a backseat a bit more now, since I'm already "involved" (another Uyghur proverb for the situation: قۇشقاچ بولسىمۇقاسسقپ سويسۇن. "Even if it's only a sparrow, let the butcher take care of skinning it"). Although, to be honest, I'm not sure how much difference it will make now—the user has already become a troll, nothing is going to change that now, and from the looks of his very first edits to the article he was already a troll to begin with. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly glad you, an admin, are around. However, such instances are clearly trying for you, a contributor who has dedicated a significant amount of effort to an article. The user is clearly disruptive, and I just want you to be mindful of WP:UNINVOLVED when carrying out your good work. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message; you are right, of course. I took quick action with the sock because I figured it's an obvious case and I didn't want to give it any time to create disruption on such a widely-viewed article, but as things progress I will try to take more of a back seat (especially given that it's an obvious enough case that other admins shouldn't have difficulty dealing with it). Also, now that the article is off the main page the pageviews are slowly falling, stopping disruption won't feel so "urgent" anymore. Thanks for the input, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs06:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please do some research before you make your judgment?
In these two edits [12][13] you restored comments that were removed by editors after a brief discussion at the talk page, and you didn't provide any rationale for why you are restoring them. If you didn't already know, there is a discussion at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Spoiled like pandas? about this stuff. Please leave a comment there rather than continuing to revert; reverting without discussion is often considered edit warring. Thank you, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Above is the message you left on my talk page. The so called 2 edits you listed are the same one. Before you make the judgment, please do more research. Thanks!--Jinhuili (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was probably just a copy-and-paste error (sometimes I hit ctrl+c and my keyboard doesn't get it). There were two edits. I apologize if I gave the wrong diffs, but the point is just please try to stick to the discussion. Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe this was the other edit (same sort of revert). In any case, the important thing is not to edit war, regardless of whether it was one or two—and as far as I can tell you haven't been doing that since then, so I think everything is fine. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In the second edit, I removed "like pandas". Thus, you should have nothing to worry about: It's not a edit war. --Jinhuili (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, restoring the main content of a disputed edit with just some minor changes can still be considered reverting. (From what I remember, the main dispute in these edits was whether to say the policies "spoiled Uyghurs" or "Hans believe they spoiled Uyghurs", and in both of your reverts that content is still there.) Again, like I said, this is not anything to worry about anymore because you haven't been edit warring in a long time, I'm not trying to argue with you or anything; I just wanted to clarify that point so you don't inadvertently get in trouble over it later on any other articles (ie, I wouldn't want to see you get blocked somewhere else for a misunderstanding over what is considered a "revert"). Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Look at the Xinjiang-article and tell me what you think -- someone just added about a huge passage (UNSOURCED) and called it "brief history".... and squeezed it in before the actual history-part. thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good call on your part; the text was plagiarized from another website. Usually when I see a massive amount of information added in a single edit, especially from someone who's not an established editor, I try Googling a few select sentences from it to do a quick check for plagiarism.
By the way, for future reference... if you want to report a questionable edit, it's helpful to provide a diff (which you can get by clicking the "history" tab of the article, and then finding the edit in question and clicking the "prev" link next to it; the URL of that link is the diff). It just makes it a bit easier to find the edit (for example, when I first glanced at this message from you, I thought you were talking about the July 2009 Urumqi article and I was confused for a moment). Thanks! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
July 2009 Urumqi Riots
Sorry, me again. "First Time Again" seems like a sockpuppet of "Oooh75" which seems like a sockpuppet, too. If there's a petition to block him/her -- I'll sign it.:P Seb az86556 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I was just about to leave a message asking about that; based on how FTA's first edit ever was reverting, I assumed it was a sock, I just hadn't had time yet to see whose edit he was reverting to. They do look pretty similar (this edit from Oooh75, in particular, is just like FTA's)... a lot of editors have been making similar edits so it's not necessarily damning evidence, but it's enough to be concerned. For now, though, FTA is so close to getting blocked for edit warring that I wouldn't worry to much about it, since it looks like he'll get blocked for one reason or another anyway. Then if he starts using other accounts after that one is blocked, it will be easy to tell who the socks are. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
Yes. I am new and this is the first time I am trying to edit. I do not know every rule of Wikipedia yet. Thank you for helping me out. What I do not understand here is why the numbers can not be shown and why you (may be one other person) can put it out the way you like but we can not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by First time again (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Shí ałdo' shiBarn Star áłtséhígíí baa ahéé' nisin (...and since you wrote an article about Navajo Slash-L, you go ahead and figure out what that mean :)...) Seb az86556 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Heheh... I didn't actually write that article, I just added a sentence or two about Ahtna... spent a summer working at Linguist List and one of my jobs was to take a hundred or so pages' worth of typewritten Ahtna placenames collected in the 50s and enter them into Excel (the 50-year-old paper and ink had not worn well with time, and couldn't be read by OCR software), and boy did they have a lot of Ł. So I can't read that, although I bet I'd recognize the Ahtna words for "lake", "mountain", "field", "highway", etc., if you gave them to me! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the Barn"Star". It was great working with you. Hope to do it again in the future. When I have time I will see if it is still possible to clean the POV-mess at Falun Gong and its related articles. Your expertise would be useful there. Colipon+(T) 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is not too personal, but I have always wondered what your gender is. It's hard to tell from your user page and I've avoided using any gender-specific personal pronouns to refer to you. Colipon+(T) 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sing girls, 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.
Sir, after your blocking Historiographer, the edit-warring started again. The dispute continues, and I just protected the edition when you blocked Historiographer, was I wrong? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Manchu/Qing
We need somebody with knowledge of Chinese history:
Xinjiang, section 1.7
Over the past day, various IP-users have been trying to replace "Manchu Empire" and similar wording in section 1.7 with "Qing" or "Qing Dynasty" -- I don't have any knowledge of who-is-who, but it seems like some sort of POV or whatever. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rjanag. Thanks for your advice about my 'editing gap' on my talk page. User:Backslash Forwardslash has kindly offered to put up a nomination for adminship, so I'll find out what other editors think! (I'm not sure whether it was my Wikibirthday, but I'm fairly sure I've bumped into you somewhere on WP; unfortunately I can't pinpoint the place either!)--Kateshortforbob10:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
help/mediate
please give your input on Qiuzheyun's edits, specifically continued insertion of the word "terrorism" ino July 5 Urumqi riots article. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Mate, you're "famous": [14] ChinaHistorian's attempting to spread hate specifically against you (using your name), despite the fact that his page has zero views, and zero followers. He's just had a short rant about you on another site, which may be against your privacy rights. Although this can be laughable, isn't WP:CANVASSING a big no-no in WP policy? I guess this may constitute off-Wiki "hate speech"; you reckon further action should be taken? -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think it's worth worrying about. Before he was ever blocked, ChinaHistorian basically told me he was going to do this (he probably thought it was subtle, but he said "if I am blocked this edit history will be published) and I wasn't surprised to see it go up several days ago. To be honest, I've been getting a laugh out of checking it every day and seeing no comments and no views (last time I checked it had something like 9 views, most of which were by me or other people involved in this debate after seeing him post the link on my userpage); it's pretty lame. I think he will soon get bored and move on to something else—if he hasn't already. He hasn't attempted to publish any personal information on me, and his post is no worse than many other "wikipedia sucks they banned me!!!" blog posts from bitter blocked users all over the place, so I don't think there's any need to do anything about it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
(as a side note... I have been enjoying watching how much of a moron this guy seems to be. He keeps ranting and raving about how we're trying to "hide" or "suppress" the whole paragraph about Kadeer's use of the photo...never once realizing that we never removed that, all we removed was his junk copyvio upload. The text itself was not removed. What a winner, this guy.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, got it, thanks. I think things will be all right; the worst he can do is get people to come here and vandalize my userpage and whatnot, and those kind of people are easy enough to deal with. Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
"East Turkestan" article vandalized... now what?
Hi. Somebody vandalized the East Turkestan article by copy-pasting, ad verbatim, the entire content of the Xinjiang-article into it, leaving reference-links that have no reflist. I have no idea how to revert this or fix it. Look at it it you can. thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this, Seb. For future reference, to revert serious vandalism (especcially if it was multiple edits) you can open up an older revision of the article before the vandalism took place (for example, the version you linked above... the easiest way to get the older version is to go to Page History and click the timestamp of the version before vandalism; Help:Page history has more info on navigating this page), and then, once you have that revision open, click the "edit" tab and save without making any changes (leaving an edit summary like "rv to revision before vandalism" or something). This will effectively restore the article to its state before the later edits happened. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Whew
...and thanks. I'm not sure how you managed to get that edit in just a moment after mine. I dislike ugly main page mistakes, and was being fiercely pummeled with WMF errors for about 12 minutes before I could make the revert. :S Jamie☆S9315:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I was getting those messages too. I'm not even going to try tackling the credits until later tonight; the people can survive for a few hours without their awards. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs15:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I got the talk page tags, and it looks like you got all the user credits. I incremented the /count page. Jamie☆S9316:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like Wikipedia's picking up too. The logo in the top left still isn't showing up though...more philosophical fodder. Shubinator (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think most would probably be better place in Category:Psycholinguistics, as most dyslexia research I'm aware of is more related to psycholinguistic questions (for example, dual-route vs. single-route processing modules for morphology) than neurolinguistics specifically (although, of course, there is huge overlap between these fields). It probably needs to be decided on an article-by-article basis; in general, though, I don't see anything controversial about adding any of these articles, so feel free to be bold and add them! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring
Our disagreement the other day revolved around edit warring. 3RR was not the issue, you advised. With that in mind, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this at ANI. I'll oversimplify for brevity, so I apologize in advance if any details you later find important are left out.
Three weeks ago, I proposed a merger, placing appropriate tags. Only one person spoke against it, while there was myself and three users who had spoken at RFD in support of merger. No one else spoke up, even after I posed requests at WP:3O and WP:RFC.
I thought that silence amounted to consent, or at least indifference. But I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd ask at the content noticeboard. I did so, and was told that yes, there was consensus. See WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. Accordingly, I merged the articles and redirected the donor article to the recipient article. I also explained my reasons for concluding consensus existed on the talk page.
That lone holdout I mentioned? He reverted my edit. His edit summary implied that he had not read the talk page and understood that consensus, so I reverted his revert, once. He has now reverted it again, a second time.[16] With your admonition in mind, I have not reverted him a second time, and have instead raised the issue at ANI, at the link given above. Could you take a look, please?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It is damaging the encyclopædia. It is poisonous. As I said at ANI, it -- the article, and through its proxy, Jez's stonewalling or any attempts to apply wikipedia policy to it -- exemplifies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. We are paralyzed, unable to remove even the most plainly untenable content, and when a user attempts in good faith to enforce policy, they are met with stonewalling and obstacles thrown in their path from every corner.
The organization is non-notable. No one, in either of the two AFDs on it, has advanced a single policy-based counterargument, or added any material to the article, that demonstrates its notability. Read those AFDs again, and really look at the kind of counterarguments being made against the noms - they range from gossamer to farcical. It is clearly, plainly, inarguably, non-notable, its existence sheer vanity. Yet user:Jezhotwells has managed to thwart all attempts, including this one, to expurge it. Even though the policy on consensus explicitly says that a single user's objection doesn't forestall consensus, a single user's objection is, in practical terms, being allowed to forestall consensus. Even though our plicy forbids edit warring, you told me, regardless of a 3RR violation, and even though the actual process of his preventing the implementation of consensus took the form of edit warring, no harm no foul! I cannot tell you how frustrating this is. It really and honestly makes me (so an editor might say) want to tell wikipedia to go fuck itself and walk away.
By the way, since when and by what policy do non-admin users like user:NeutralHomer have the right to close a discussion at ANI, a fortiori a discussion that they have chosen to involve themselves? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
And I do think it's reasonable to ask how long. AFD waits seven days, and if people haven't said their peace by then, their consent is deemed implied. Why is seven days sufficient for purposes of deleting an article, but three weeks isn't sufficient to merge it, and how long is sufficient?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You say I'm welcome to ask others to comment, but clearly not: NH accused me of monopolizing the admin boards and closed the debate. (So who am I supposed to ask to comment, and/or where?
It's all well and good to say that "saying unequivocally that such an article can stay forever would ... be bad, but just letting it hang around for a few weeks while its right to exist is under discussion is not terrible for the encyclopedia." But it is staying around forever. It has overstayed its welcome by months, and tonight has given it yet another stay of execution, after which user:JezHotwells will canvas up a veritable army of opposition to the merge. Just watch: after three weeks of no one saying anything, I would bet real money that in the next few days, users will, all of a sudden, appear out of the blue to oppose the merge. And thus, the article will continue to exist, will continue to make a mockery our notability policy.
As to the grand scheme of things, in the grand scheme of things this is a shibboleth. As I said, this article exemplifies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. That's not to say that it is a sacrificial lamb - it exemplifies not merely represents. But it has to go, and the more work I have to put into plucking this one obviously bad apple from the barrel, the harder I find it to take Wikipedia seriously. We have no policies except the ones we do: You must surely understand how unbearable it is to be sanctioned per an incredibly strict application of one policy, yet to see users and articles getting away with gross violations of policy. Similar incidents are treated differently. No one has advanced a serious argument for this article's notability, yet two AFDs have been stonewalled, despite our policy against stonewalling (see WP:GAME). No one has advanced a serious argument that there isn't a consensus to delete, yet consensus has been stonewalled by one user, in spite of our afore-mentioned policy against stonewalling and our policy against one user thwarting consensus. We don't take policy seriously. We don't apply policy evenhandedly. These are huge problems. If we can't pull this one rotten apple from the barrel, then one has to woder if it's the barrel that is defective, not the apple. I find this whole business just unbearably frustrating and dispiriting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Re NH: I don't say he can't participate, and there may even be circumstances in which his closing a debate is okay (see WP:NAC). But for him to wade in and take sides in an argument, start hurling criticisms at me, and then to close the discussion in media res? That's incredible. You say it's for others to decide - what others and how do I ask them to?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed. I wasn't so concerned about his Kadeer edit because, while it's a bunch of unnecessary detail, it's less off-topic than in the main article, and while he's obviously trying to push a point (that Kadeer is a liar) he's doing a pretty poor job of it—his quotes don't actually prove the point he's trying to make anyway.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave for a couple hours fairly soon...hopefully you guys will be able to keep an eye on him! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything block-worthy yet (although his actions while he was blocked were pretty shameful). This edit to World Uyghur Congress was blatant POV-pushing, but he can't be blocked for it until it becomes highly disruptive. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
True. but tell me who vandalized all the ref-tags on the int reaction part? this is a total onslaught w/o discussing anything Seb az86556 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that happened in an edit by HelloTerran, not CH: [17]. Also, it was probably not intentional vandalism, but maybe a formatting error caused by editing using an external text editor or something; happens now and then. I'll try to use that diff to clean it up.
After that I have to go for a bit. But with the article suddenly heating up again, and the amount of real-life work I also have to do today, I'm considering skipping my Sunday afternoon badminton match, so I might be back sooner than expected :'( ... rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"I'm considering skipping my Sunday afternoon badminton match" Be careful, now! That is a tell-tale warning of Wikiholicism. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:WQA
I've raised an issue at WQA that tangentially involves you. I want to be clear that I am not reporting you, and in notifying you, I do not mean to imply any kind of reporting of you. I am not suggesting you did anything wrong this week or last week.
With that disclaimer up front, one issue that was lost in the crush last night was a question I had asked about whether Jez had edit warred under the standard you relied on to warn me last week, and accordingly, whether he ought to be warned now. As I said, I am not questioning your judgment - that would be ungracious, among other things: after all, you got involved at my request - in not warning Jez. I think the issue just got lost amid all the other stuff. I'd still like that looked at - not necessarily by you, I'm not asking you to do more legwork, it's just that good wikiquette requires that I should notify you since you were involved.[18] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not really interested in determining who's right and who's wrong, and given the way I was contacted in this dispute I don't think I'm in a position allowing me to warn, or take action for or against, either you of. All I'm interested in is the best way to resolve the content dispute, and I have already given my opinion on that. Anyway, thanks for the notification. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, just to be very clear, I'm not asking you to get involved, I just felt as a matter of good wikiquette that you ought to be notified that it was going on since you were involved.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Re your last message on my talk page: dude, he demanded that I raise the issue at ANI, twice, having threatened to do so himself. How I'm being criticized for doing so is beyond me. WQA is an attempt to compromise, to avoid disrupting ANI.
I am worried about individual editors, because as I said above, I am increasingly convinced that we odn't take rules seriously, and that users are mistreated by unequal treatment. If the fate of a request for admin intervention depends purely on the personal proclivities of the first admin to respond, and if any user, even one involved in the debate, can declare a thread at ANI closed, which is the power he's claiming, there is no due process here worth spit. Users have to be able to rely on the rules. They have to be able to trust the admins to behave fairly and evenhandedly, to treat like situations alike. I have no idea where to take these concerns, but they have to be addressed somewhere, and if they can't be addressed systemically, then what choice do I have but to address them one-by-one as they arise, small-bore as they are? Sometimes I get to thinking that I should just file an RFA myself and deal with these issues from that perch. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So you want an edit war???
When I saw you reverted my "the" to "who is the" on July 2009 Ürümqi riots I thought how funny would it be to revert your edit and say Bring It! in my edit summary. That made me laugh enough to inhale some iced coffee, so I thought I'd share it with you :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I dare you! And if you keep on trying to hide and suppress the word "the", which the world NEEDS to know, then I will expose you for the terrorist sympathizer that you are!!! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:-) I'm just glad I had the forethought to order iced coffee tonight! As an aside, great work you are doing on that article!Fuzbaby (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have a constructive and accurate comment to make on my behaviour feel free to make it at my talk page. Please do not make insinuations of sockpuppetry, meat puppetry or other forms of abuse unless you are prepared to make them openly to me and the whole community in the appropriate forum. Groomtech (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said at that comment, I wasn't suggesting sockpuppetry, only pointing out a funny coincidence. Coincidence doesn't mean rulebreaking. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs10:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Bastille Day
Think you can add about 4k worth of text to that? Haha, it should be easy enough to expand that for tonight/tomorrow if you are feeling energetic. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
IHC
I've restored the Improperly Capitalized Page, since it is the one linked, and fixed the redirect. No prejudice to re-deletion once the links are updated, but it should probably be done by someone who isn't also opposing the proposed policy, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. –xenotalk21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for doing that. I also meant to leave the linked pages (which is why I left a redirect behind when moving the page...figured the cross-namespace redirect could be deleted after fixing the links) but forgot to check WhatLinksHere before deleting the other-capitalization redirect. You're right, though; I can wait for someone else to do the rest of that. Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much for that, my first barnstar! :D Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't ignoring you - I really should check my talk page more. As for the DYK, I'm quite happy with that nomination and have nothing to add to that. Thanks! User:Midway (talk), 01:04, 14 July (UTC)
DYK for Zhou Youguang
On July 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhou Youguang, 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.
Sorry that i didn't respond to your messages for a while. I'm having a hard time editing the references the right way, I don't know how to set them up right. I don't want to ruin the page or make it a bad article but the fact that I can't fix the citations right is negatively effecting the page. So if could, could you try to help me fix the references or show me how to because I'm very confused on how to do them correctly. Sorry for any trouble that I have caused you or the articles page. - Ashley92995
Thanks for the example on how to create a good reference, I think I understand how to do it now, I just edited and corrected all of the refs in Albas Charites and Politics section in the her personal life section, so if you could review it and tell me if I did it right it would be helpful.
What if i revert my edits that I've recently done to Alba's careen section, could you leave other edits, because I agree a majority of my edits aren't to very important to the article (adding non-major things), but some are, so If I remove things that are unnessisary on my own, and you review the page after I'm done and like it can you leave my other of my edits alone, or you can tell me what you don't like and I'll remove it.
Im going to re-edit and undue a majority of my edits, If you like the way the page is when I'm done could you not un-due my other edits.
I just edited, and finished the article. I compared the article before I edited it and after I finished editing it and It does look the same, thou some notable differences are that I added a qoute box in Public Image section, minor edits to Early Life, and relationships, a photo to Career Section, added a Other Awards Chart to Awards section, added The Killer Inside Me, and Valentines Day to career section, and added the the shark incident, and her offer to act free for the aids foundation to the Charity's section.
Also, thanks for being understanding, and for helping me. - Ashley92995
Linguistics : See Also Branches and fields
Hi
Just been adding a few wiki links to the Dyslexia : Orthography article including the Linguistics and i noticed the large lists in the See Also section under the heading of Branches and fields.
Would this Navigation Navbox code help, it is only an outline but you could copy and paste the real lists of articles from the linguistics article
But it it would not be practical to add your {{Linguistics}} at the bottom of an article with other similar navigation bars. We could add the new type of bar say to the bottom of the Dyslexia : Orthography above the "Dialects and accents of English by continent" nav bar dolfrog (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. There is probably a standard way to make horizontal templates; see, for example, {{journalism}} and {{journalism footer}}.
Deleting of 21st Century Punk Rock Volume #1 article
The film 21st Century Punk Rock Volume #1 is my own work and I own all the copyrights. I have signed papers giving me permission for all the content on that film and my website to the film is located at http://21st.punkrockdemo.com . The film is released and distributed through Attic Tan Records and is available everywhere that sells dvd. Is there a way the article can be restored?
There are three reasons the article cannot be restored right now. First of all, Wikipedia has a notability guideline: we are only allowed to write articles about things that have received significant coverage outside of Wikipedia. To restore your article, you would need to provide things like reviews, news coverage, etc., demonstrating that this film is important; Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising. Wikipedia:Notability (films) has more information on the specific guidelines for films.
Secondly, regardless of who owns the copyright, we do not want text copied and pasted from somewhere else. Even if you hold the copyright and technically have permission to copy this text, it is lazy writing and it makes Wikipedia look bad. If you want to write about this film, it's better to write from scratch.
On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Uyghur Congress, which you recently nominated. 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.
Q1: Why isn't this event categorised as "terrorism"?
A1: Wikipedia operates under the consensus policy. Numerous editors have agreed not to label the incident as such since there are no reliable, verifiable sources categorising it in that manner.
Q2: Why isn't this event categorised as a "pogrom"?
A2: In English usage, the word "pogrom" refers to attackes committed by the majority against a minority, and evokes notions of attacks against Jews.
Q3: Why isn't there a mention of the ethnicity of victims in the lead or in the infobox?
A3: The information is included in the body of the article. Giving such information in the lead or in the infobox was considered inflammatory.
That's a good idea. Why don't you suggest it at the talk page (and post this sample) so people can work on tweaking and preparing it? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
PNAS images
Hi Rjanag,
I apologize for any misunderstandings. I work for PNAS and have been advised to update the cover image roughly every month. I will refrain from uploading the images with incorrect licensing claims. How do you suggest I upload the images? Are you suggesting I can only upload one image as "fair use"? Is that our limit?
Please send along further details. Apologies, again, for the confusion.
Hello Rjanag -- Many thanks for the birthday greeting you left on my Talk page! Having become distracted with other activities, I hadn't even realized that it was my Wiki Birthday until I read your message. Think I will have to have concoct a special cappuccino to celebrate the occasion :-) Polaris999 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I was rather concerned that you have been fiddling with my user and talk pages. I was under the impression that these are my spaces and that, so long as I don't put anything nasty on them about other Wikipedians, there is no need for anyone else to touch my user page at least. So, I would ask, politely, that you please leave them alone in future. Thankyou.--Beehold (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct in that a user page is more your space than an article it is, but it is still not 100% "your" space (users do not own their pages) and there are some general guidelines. Specifically, your talk page is meant to be a place for people to leave you messages, and if you fill it with multiple copies of an article it is difficult for them to do so. You are not specifically violating any policy, though, so if you insist then I won't complain if you keep using your talkpage to repost that material.
As for your userpage, it is more important there the you include the {{user page}} template. User pages are not supposed to be used as mirrors of deleted articles (it's fine to put an article there while you're working on it, but just copying it there to circumvent its deletion is generally not ok—see WP:UP#COPIES), and if an article is being used as such you need to tag it so that any readers who stumble across it understand that it's not a Wikipedia article, just a user's page. This standard has been pretty strictly enforced in the past, and I must request that you add the {{user page}} template back. I don't care if you keep multiple copies of the article on that page (I don't understand why you do it, but you have the right to do it if you want), but it is important that you leave the tag there. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
May I also suggest that you add level-1 section headers like
=Version 1=
=Version 2=
etc., between the different versions posted on your talk page? That would make it easier to see why there are different copies there. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added some explanation to Market transition payment. It's by no means perfect, but it does explain what these payments actually are, so I hope it's at least stub-worthy.
At Market sharing quota, I did some research, and it terms out that this is a technical term in Canada. This wasn't immediately clear because I used lower case letters in the name. To clarify this, I moved the article to "Marketing Sharing Quota" and added a Google Books source supporting the notion. (However, if this still makes you uncomfortable, you could move it to Marketing Sharing Quota (Canada).
The page in question was deleted as part of a broad WP:POINT campaign by User:TTN, and the article should stand on its own as the main character's machine, based on the standards set by other fictional series. 68.228.105.90 (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review takes too long, and since it's no longer being actively edited and the original deletion was in bad faith, I'd rather just be bold and restore it. I'm also working on gathering some real world notability stuff to solve its problems. 68.228.105.90 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, there isn't a strong consensus against it? The only person reverting is doing so in bad faith, as can be seen by his edit summary of "suck my dick". There's no need for this to be reviewed, just need to wait until vandals leave the article alone so I can work on it. 68.228.105.90 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
And per WP:FICTION, the article in question has plenty of notability through cultural impact, based upon the model kits and other merchandise produced for it. In addition, as the main machine of the series, it deserves an article of its own based upon the precedent set by articles on items like the Starship Enterprise or RX-78-2 Gundam. I'd be able to add this stuff in if you people would quit bothering me.
Sadly, the repeated deletion of this and other articles is an example of the willful ignorance and bias against Wikipedia articles on mecha, and the strong Western bias of the fiction standards. 68.228.105.90 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:Note
I wasn't picking a fight, I was simply responding to his posting on my own talk page. And although I restored the first warning I gave him out of ignorance, the second warning was a new warning in response to his escalation of personal attacks. I'm not harassing anyone here. 68.228.105.90 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
And just to let you know, I'm not User:Wikimachine. Not sure how the other guy came to that conclusion or thinks that we "edit the exact same articles". I am a disgruntled former editor, although I haven't been banned. Took a long wikibreak after having to deal with similar issues on other articles and don't remember my password. Cheers, 68.228.105.90 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
band deletion
How is my page Diabolical Exploits inappropriate. you have band pages with much less information and they are not significant in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklight179 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The presence of other bad articles doesn't give you the right to create more bad articles; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Wikipedia is full of bad articles and there are not many people taking the time to clean them up, so there are always going to be lots of articles around that don't meet the standards.
well if an article on company like thinkgeek can be listed on wikipedia, whats the issue with mockint ??. i am not loading any biased content for the company, its just the information about the company and the kind of work they do and its nothing like a promotion or Ad content. if the wikipedia policy is to grow a big shot and then only your listing is considered, its bit hard to understand. it will be helpful if you explain in brief what sort of content might help me get its article written and listed here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajupadhyay05 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks for explaining me the situation and the reason for the deletion of article. I will now upload the article when i have relevant reference. I will always make sure that i meet all the notablility guidline from wikipedia. Once again thanks for your reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajupadhyay05 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the discussion has already been in the talk page so I thought I didn't need to start a more new one. The mediation cabal has been started for more than 10 days but no one cares about it till now. All edits should be discussed beforehand at the talk page? Oh my Goodness! That's complicated. I don't understand the rules here very much so I won't care about the discussion any more. Thanks. Goodbye. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the article is in the middle of a dispute, no one involved should make edits without discussing them first?! So what I want to add should be discussed in the talk page first, or else, the article should stay at the present edition, right? It's very simple? I don't think so. Yes, I'm just leaving. It's very disappointing here. Good luck. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
(The Helping Hand Barnstar is to be awarded to users who frequently help new users.)
Thanks! It's been a pleasure seeing how quickly you've figured out Wikipedia... you've already become a prolific editor, and your help in monitoring Xinjiang and the other current-event related articles lately has been invaluable! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
La Roux without makeup
Hi, can I have a copy of this page please? My sister must have somehow got on Wikipedia, found how to make a page and made it. From here it looks like an attack page, as my sister hates La Roux.
I would really support two articles, one for "Xinjiang AR", one for the cultural region... but I guess if I just re-direct the whole shebang, I'll piss off a lot of people... what should the "cultural region" be called? "East Turkestan"(article already exists)? "Xinjiang" ??? (I've learned that's "Chinese-imperialist-speak" for "new frontier/manifest destiny/kill-the-natives" in some people's ears) Right now, it's a confusing mess, esp. to someone who doesn't know much about it... there are something like 4 or 5 competing articles... Seb az86556 (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it is quite messy. "Xinjiang" is an offensive term to some Uyghurs because, like you said, it literally means "new frontier", which is clearly a Chinese-point-of-view term; to the Uyghurs there is nothing "new" about Xinjiang. That being said, it is the name by which most of the world now knows that region, so there is something to be said for using that name; East Turkestan is just as inherently POV, and these are really the only two names to choose from, so if both are POV I would go with whichever is more practical.
Ultimately I think what will need to be done is a careful audit of what content exists in all the articles that are present (off the top of my head, I can name Xinjiang, History of Xinjiang, and East Turkestan), to determine just what materials we are dealing with. Then, I think East Turkestan should more or less be merged into the newXinjiang article, which ideally should have a summary of history (with {{main|History of Xinjiang}} for the more in-depth history), as well as info on geography and culture (note: much of the information on geography is already available at Dzungaria and Tarim Basin, geographical regions which roughly correspond to the northern and southern halves of Xinjiang, respectively). The new Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region article, like the Tibet Autonomous Region article, should have most of the history stuff removed (to be sent to the history article) and it should focus more on contemporary stuff—government, economy, demographics, and of course issues of separatism. An East Turkestan article could be maintained, but it should be a small article about the term "East Turkestan" itself and its association with separatism; the top of the article should have a dablink saying something along the lines of "for the region sometimes known as East Turkestan, see Xinjiang or Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region". Most importantly, the new Xinjiang article should have a section close to the beginning explaining the naming dispute.
This would all be a pretty major project (and one that I won't have time to do most of the legwork on right now, although I'd be around to watch things and help out if disputes come up, etc.).... but I think this would be the most reasonable way to organize the articles. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite correct -- I discussed at edit summaries at reversions and w/warning on user's talk page, and other editor who reverted Yank10 also discussed at his edit summary today as well.--Ethelh (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Where? I see nothing but these two template warnings: [19][20]. Too little, too late. Template warnings like that are not attempts for discussion; they're ultimatums. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion; you should be engaging in real discussion at a talk page, not fighting with edit summaries during the revert war. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I and Wknight made substantive comments both in edit summaries and (in my case) on user's talk page. See for example the below edit summaries (emphasis added) by Wknight94 noting: "Agree with Ethelh that most of this is worth keeping," and by met that "this is what the press is talking about, is therefore notable, and is sourced," and note on user's talk page in which I wrote: "The inline references are appropriate, support the text, and comport with Wikipedia guidelines" (the response I received on the talk page that I wrote it on was simply a deletion of my comment). This user seems to simply dislike the material and the use of inline citations reporting it.
• (cur) (prev) 11:47, July 21, 2009 Wknight94 (talk | contribs) (4,478 bytes) (Agree with Ethelh that most of this is worth keeping, including the refs, but agree with Yankees10 that it was beaten to death a bit, so I trimmed verbiage) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 04:10, July 7, 2009 Ethelh (talk | contribs) (5,894 bytes) (Undid revision 300671916 by Yankees10 (talk) rev --this is what the press is talking about, is therefore notable, and is sourced) (undo)
Deletion of Material at Chris Davis
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Davis, you will be blocked from editing. The inline references are appropriate, support the text, and comport with Wikipedia guidelines.--Ethelh (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
--Ethelh (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, edit summaries while reverting are not a substitute for discussion. If the user continues to inappropriately revert after you have made a real attempt at discussion, I can easily block him. For now, though, you have no more right to be reverting than he does, and no admin action will be taken if real attempts at discussion haven't been made. Rather than arguing with me about the 3RR report, your time would be better spent trying to start the discussion. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not being clear. I did not only seek to discuss in edit summaries. though I did use them to explain my edits -- which I understand is what I am supposed to do.
I also wrote on user's talk page: "The inline references are appropriate, support the text, and comport with Wikipedia guidelines The user simply deleted my comment, without responding.--Ethelh (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but like I said, that message was already well after edit warring had gotten out of hand, and was practically hidden inside a templated warning message. You are really just repeating yourself now, so I don't see how anything more will come of us arguing over this. Just go start the discussion, and if he keeps reverting and ignores the discussion I can block him anyway. It's very simple. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I will try yet again. May I put the info back in, at the same time as I start the discussion? Also, Betty Logan, with who I have had problems before, is wikistalking me -- see her last edit on my page -- what would you suggest I do in that regard?--Ethelh (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't revert the actual article at all until after discussion has happened. You are welcome to seek outside opinions (through WP:Third opinion or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, or other places) once the discussion has started.
Will do. I had just thought that perhaps you were OK'ing my reinserting the deleted material, as you wrote "Just go start the discussion, and if he keeps reverting and ignores the discussion I can block him anyway." For him to "keep reverting", I of course would have to reinsert the material ... otherwise, there is nothing to revert. But I will follow your approach. I've now left a message on user's talk page, repeating my prior comments and pointing him to the article talk page for further discussion (as that is a better place for interested parties to join in the conversation). As to Betty, thanks. If you look back through the edit history on her talk page, you will see the history of the problems that I had with her. From her response to you, rather than her feeling that she has been warned, she is (improperly) criticizing you instead. As to her charges, of course they are baseless -- Wknight and I agree, and the delete is the only one who has expressed a contrary view (without talk page discussion, in contrast to the talk page discussion I had made which was deleted). Betty is being Betty, wikistalking me and making inaccurate comments.--Ethelh (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The war continues. This user has a long history of edit warring and sockpuppetry, and seems to have no concept of the problem with his actions. I request all registered accounts be indefinitely blocked. Vicenarian(T · C)19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just blocked Orsanhes indefinitely... keeping Orceuos at 72h for now because the evidence doesn't seem 100% guaranteed to me, but if a CU confirms it to be a sock then it can be blocked. I think the article should also be semi-protected for at least a couple days, does that sound ok? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
100% behind the semi-protection, for as long a period as you see fit. Do you think we have enough to ask for a CU? Vicenarian(T · C)19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if there's enough yet, but when his block expires in 3 days I think, if he really is the same user, he will quickly show his colors (through a revert, a recognizable edit summary, etc). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I remember hearing about this recently...I thought I had heard about it on NPR a week or so ago, but apparently not (if the NPR thing was just today)...I wonder where.
Naw, I thought it might get AfD'd for some reason, so I was going to wait 24 hours before nominating it for DYK. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
opinion needed
Not sure if I can bother you with this... over the past few days, I have re-written Transkei - which was a mere stub w/o refs - and need some opinion on "accessibillity" from someone who (probably) has only remote knowledge of the topic. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this looks excellent. I have only had a chance to skim it briefly right now, but from what I can tell it seems pretty accessible. I might try to do a fuller read-through, copyedit, and review sometime this week, but it will depend on how busy I am (and a warning: from Friday to Sunday I'll be traveling, so my Wikipedia editing will probably be near zero for a couple days). From just looking at it now, here are some quick comments:
You might want to explain Bantustan in a sentence or two in the lede...having it linked is nice, but it seems like a pretty crucial term so it should be clear. A general rule of thumb with linking is that unfamiliar terms should be linked but the prose should be written in such a way that the reader can understand the article without following any of the links (see WP:LINK).
The section title "Comments and reactions" surprised me at first... I think I have a clear idea what that section is about, and that title is an accurate descriptor, but it just seems a bit jarring in a geography article. Maybe it could be a sub-subsection of the Establishment section, with a slightly more descriptive title (but I can't think of a good suggestion just yet).
Organization: The "Geography and demographics" section seems a bit low. I don't know if there's an official guideline on this, but it seems to me like most articles like this have History and Geography as their first two sections (in either order...sometimes geo is first, sometimes history). On the other hand, the order somewhat makes sense in this article since the article is about a former state, rather than a geographical area, so the state's government and policies really are more integral to the article's identity than the geography is (since the geography is something more general that it shares with other articles, like Eastern Cape). I don't know if anything necessarily needs to be changed here, but it's at least worth thinking about (that way if someone questions the organization later, you can at least have an answer ready).
That's all I've got for now; good work on this! You absolutely should nominate it for Good Article status (the nominations page is WP:GAN), I think it will pass very easily. In fact, unless you're planning on making major changes or a full copyedit or anything, you could probably nominate it now—it generally takes at least 2 weeks for GA nominations to be reviewed (sometimes even longer for geography and history ones, since there are so many nominations), so even if you nom'ed it now there would still be plenty of time for me or another editor to do a quick once-over before its official review. (If you want an idea what a GA review will be like, you can take a look at any of the articles at GAN where reviews have already started; there's a wide variety of reviewer styles, from very thorough to very quick.) The best thing about doing GA is that, if you are fortunate enough to get a thorough reviewer, the review itself will greatly improve the article. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. thank you... didn't know it was good enough to even be considered. I totally agree with the "shortness"-criticism on "Geography," but I seem to be one of those weirdos who insist on having everything ref'd, and there isn't really much to be found. (Yeah, I could pull it out of my *ss, but that wouldn't fly...) I'll keep looking. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
i agree with you,조선왕조 (朝鮮王朝)used more often than 李氏朝鮮(Ri Dynasty) now, but i want to know where is 대조선국 （大朝鮮國) 'Kingdom of Great Joseon' come from? Gzhao (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Some users may find the use of 大- controversial, as it puts the Joseon Dynasty on equal par in terms with countries such as 大清, 大明 and 大日本帝国 when it comes to political, cultural and military power, although I do feel that there is little difference that one character makes, and that a war over that one character is just plain absurd. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still learning how to properly edit articles, so I'm very open to criticism.
With that being said, I think condensing the reviews for The Linguists makes a lot of sense. I'll mess around with the review section and see if I can make it flow better. And don't worry about changing any of my edits; if you feel something I write can be improved, by all means, go right ahead and do it. Thanks, Lemminginstinct (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
about Articles for delection/Zhang Kangzhi
I've tried to give out more VC information and some external links, but, as he is a living person, there are no other people's work which can show you how important he is. Iyawon (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You are so great - which is why I need your advice
You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent.
I have had this discussion with another user, but I am keen to get as much feedback and input as I can. I entirely accept your helpful criticisms of the Luke Heron article. I am doing my best to address your points. As a new user I am finding it all rather intimidating, but likewise it is good that one can rely on the strength, quality and integrity of the information as there are so many checks and processes involved.
I have cut the piece back to its bear bones. The bottom line is that I want to develop an entire section on celebrity type investors. Those that do the circuits and TV etc as a means of advancing the concept of retail venture capital. I wanted to start with 5 or 6 investors that are redefining or creating new areas of investment. I have no wish to promote any personality or profile, though I entirely accept under the definitions of wiki that my previous efforts were borderline at best. I have cut the piece back to its bear bones and will now develop it further - I am hoping that other UK based wiki-people (with more experience than me) can help develop this fascinating area into a hive of encyclopedic information for the benefit of us all.
In the meantime, I would genuinely appreciate any help and advice that you can offer me in respect to both my first effort (I have cut it back significantly, but it obviously needs building up) and any future efforts. In short, I clearly require mentoring and would be very grateful if you could lend just a little time to pen a few words of advice. Again, I am enormously grateful for any and all input. I have a genuine passion for this space and I would love to help develop it. (MyraSendak (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for your message. I left a response about Luke Heron at the AfD page. I'm not sure if there is much more I can offer you as far as improvement suggestions for this particular article (I guess all you can do is read my objections and see if you can find sources that will address them), but I have requested that instead of being deleted, the article be moved into your userspace at User:MyraSendak/Luke Heron—that way it would be removed from Wikipedia's main "article" space but you would still have time to work on it so that it will be ready in case Mr. Heron does suddenly get more media coverage.
As for editing in general...have you considered trying to start an article (or edit an existing one) on the general phenomenon of 'celebrity investors'? That seems to be your primary area of interest; you also seem to have some expertise in that area so you would probably be better than me (or someone like me) at finding reliable sources that talk about this phenomenon. Overall, writing an article like that is more difficult than writing a biography, but it would be easier to demonstrate notability, and that article could always include a brief section with short summaries of some main 'celebrity investors'; those summaries could be spun out into free-standing articles sometime in the future whenever those individuals start attracting even more attention on their own. To prepare for writing an article like that, the best thing to do is try the Wikipedia tutorial if you haven't already, read some of the basic guidelines (such as What Wikipedia is not) and help pages such as WP:Your first article and WP:The perfect article. You can also start the page within your userspace, at something like User:MyraSendak/Celebrity investors, so you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about deletion, and then not move it to the main article space until the article is ready. I can also answer any questions you have. The other good thing to do in preparation for creating articles is to go around and edit some articles yourself... I see you have already been starting to edit some articles, and this really is the best (and, in deed, the only) way to learn how Wikipedia works, how to write good articles, and how to collaborate with people.
As for writing more biographies...I probably can't offer much help with that, but WP:WikiProject Biography#Tips for writing biographies has some information; that WikiProject also has lots of examples of high-quality biography articles (for example, this page has links to biography articles categorized by quality, so you can for example look at examples of Featured Articles the are biographies). If you want examples of relatively small, simple articles of the kind you intend to be writing for the moment...well, I haven't written many biography articles, but ones that I have recently written include Zhang Yuqi, Zhou Youguang, and Zeno Vendler; none of them are about investors, but you can check them out for just a general model of how to write things.
Let me know if you have any questions. I have a lot of experience writing articles (my major ones are listed here), but not really about entrepreneurship/investing, so I can mostly only help on general Wikipedia guideline stuff rather than actual content. I am too busy this summer to do any formal adopt-a-user stuff, but since you seem like you have the project's best interest in mind and are open-minded then I will at least try to be available to answer questions; if you are interested in seeking a formal "mentorship" with an experienced editor, you can try signing up here. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your input, I really value it. I have taken up your suggestion of requesting a mentor (hopefully I will find one). I hope that the article does not get deleted and I will keep adding to it backing it up with suitable independent references. I think you idea about celebrity investors is a good one and I will try my best with that also. Thanks once again, I really appreciate your help and input. (MyraSendak (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC))
I used to have the rollback permission, although I didn't actually know that because I didn't realize there was such a thing. I'm not actually sure how I got the permission; I think it showed up about the same time I got twinkle. Anyway, I didn't realize it was a special permission and that there were strict rules associated with its use. Recently I noticed I no longer had the permission - I suspect an admin revoked it due to an edit war a little over 3 weeks ago regarding how locations are presented in sports-related articles. Having just today discovered and read the Wikipedia:ROLLBACK article, I agree that the admin who revoked the privileges was on solid ground to do so. But, now that I've read the article, I will try to avoid repeating those abuses of rollback. So I'm wondering if you might be persuaded to reinstate the privilege. Readin (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just saw the links on a diff page. But...I don't see the permission on User Permissions. Either you're very fast or I still don't understand how this works. Readin (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Arrrgh! ...ZULU-charlie-romeo-alpha-papa-ZULU, we have a problem...
So I've embarked on this journey to check in with all the articles relating to the History of Southern Africa, and I found a really cool mess: Zululand... Zulu Kingdom... started messing around on it until it dawned on me that it's a double entry... "Zululand"'s lead describes the geographical region, but the entire body of the article describes the "Zulu Kingdom" (historical state).
I've already placed a merge-tag on both articles and fused the infoboxes, but judging from the edit-history, no-one gives a darn anyways (which means I'd probably run into little opposition trying to merge the two). Moreover, each article only has 3 ref's on the list.
Question: How do I start? (Painstakingly bring one up to standard, then delete the other and redirect? Ultimately, "Zululand" would probably need a disambiguation: Zulu Kingdom, KwaZulu-Natal, KwaZulu)
That sounds like the best thing to do. Or, to get it done more quickly, if there is any content that's in one but not the other you could just copy-paste it into the other article and then redirect, and then place the disambiguation stuff at the top and start working on cleaning up from there. The merging seems pretty safe; it looks to me like Zululand is little more than a summary of Zulu Kingdom. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rjanag, I agree with you here and would have gone through the entire article, but I was called away. BTW, I don't see why her parents' first names are necessary--or did you leave then in as a peace offering? Drmies (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not necessary, but maybe not terrible either... personally I don't care either way, I was mainly just concerned with cleaning up her own name (seeing people referred to on Wikipedia like buddies is one of my pet peeves...). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 20:01, 30 July 2009
(UTC)
Thanks for your message, I take your point about the censorship comments. I shall not comment on that talk page again, but if further reversions continue, I will report it. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I will, however, continue to keep the content of the talk page within guidelines; I've been around long enough that I'm confident of my warnings. Some other people need to spend more time reading up on policy. Radiopathy•talk•17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
30?
If you disagree with 30 or 5 or another number, feel free to suggest another number.
Why would you think that? Like I said in the discussion, I am commenting because I don't believe these additions are necessary. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said there, any arbitrary number is inherently bad. The problem isn't where you placed the number; the problem is trying to assign one hard number at all. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a disruptive perma-blocked editor, editing from shifting proxies, who is just here to cause us problems. Merge them if you want, but don't give them any idea that they've got anything productive to say. Better still, revert and remove it. I'm just blocking every IP it comes from. Black Kite00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed right after reverting you; I marked the 'report' as closed to hopefully avoid wasting anyone else's time with it, but if you prefer you can re-remove it. I don't have much preference either way, now that I notice who the reporting editor was. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
