User talk:Rjanag/Archive9

Napoelonic Triple Crown

Thanks! rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Latma TV

Please read the article again. I have added material.Broad Wall (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump

Just FYI, the edit of mine which you deleted because it was added after the discussion was closed -- that's not the way it happened. I was writing the comment while the discussion was being closed, so when I saved it, it saved it to the already closed thread. I left it because the thread was open when I began composing the comment. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Before removing the comment I specifically checked to see if that were the case, and it didn't seem to be so, which is why I went ahead and removed it. Your post was made 10 minutes after Resolute closed the thread; did you really spend that long on one edit? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ten minutes, huh? That seems slow even for me. I can't recall if I was interrupted in the middle of writing it, but I probably was - I was doing laundry and other household chores this afternoon, that could explain it. But, in any case, from my interior perspective, that's the way it went down. I was very surprised after I saved it that the thread was closed, and also that I hadn't edit-conflicted with the closing, but I assumed (because I didn't look at the timestamps) that they had occured in a bang-bang fashion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

114.133.*

Hey --- that guy is changing IPs every few minutes now, it's turning into a whack-a-mole. I started an ANI thread, if it might help; see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Dynamic IP and talk pages of schools in China. cab (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

您好

User:Ccyber5由于中国大陆的网络封锁，无法在英文维基百科完全正常地编辑，他委托我向您询问一下，他可不可以申请IP封禁例外（IP block exemption）权限。另外，他有一些问题想向您请教，不知道如何与你在网上联系？--KeepOpera (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LatmaTV

Hey, Rjanag, please don't take this the wrong way, but I strongly recommend that you withdraw your attempt to delete LatmaTV, as at this point, it is obvious that your request has no chance of passing.--RM (Be my friend) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in (small) languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project.

I know you've been especially active on WikiProject Languages. I would value your opinion on whether it is worthwhile to revive WPTL, or maybe combine it into WP Linguistics. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Two moves

请帮我移动这两个文章：

• Han River (Hanjiang) ——> [[Han River (Guangdong)：This title is mis-leading, because there is another 'Hanjiang' (but 汉江), in the central portion of the country.
• Hami Prefecture ——> Kumul Prefecture: 这是一个维吾尔的地方。。。按着 中文的 MOS，名称应该用为 "Kumul"。

多谢！ ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Urumqi

Hello. The Urumqi article is due to undergo major development in User:Nvvchar/Sandbox 2. You are welcome to contribute to this sandbox and help get Urumqi up to a decent standard. Congrats on the FA on the main page BTW. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stats

I was refereed to you by Rlevse. I was wondering how to put stats on my talk page like admins showing number of edits that auto updates. Thanks.

Hmm... (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to do that. Administrators do it using the {{adminstats}} or {{adminbars}} template, but I'm not aware of any corresponding template for non-admins. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

Please show me where this consensus was actually established. I need to know the reason why these characters don't qualify or why you don't want these characters here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And I also need to see if it is legit. The only reason why an consensus should be made is to better the article. And removing certain characters from the show is not bettering an article. And plus consensus for the article should be only in the article talk page or on the AFD of the article. Or maybe on the Avatar task force page. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for showing me. It's strange though I thought there was an consensus on those certain characters and after reading it I see nothing about how they determined what characters go on there. I did however see that the nominator mentioned nitpicking it but's that about it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Li Keqiang (asking for your assistance)

Hi Rjanag. An IP user (123.203.130.251 (talk · contribs)) has violated WP:3RR on the page Li Keqiang, over the title "First Vice-Premier" and "Executive Vice Premier". What are the appropriate actions to be taken in a case like this? He goes as far as to say "I'm a Chinese that I must know more about China than you. Please read the offical introduction from China: http://english.gov.cn/2008-03/17/content_783355.htm". Colipon+(Talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

found something...

Hi, it's been a while... what exactly is Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment supposed to contain? Seems quite POV to me, esp. the entries. I stumbled across it and consider putting it up for discussion. Right now, I don't have any suitable alternative though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it was made to go with Sinophobia, but I agree, the stuff in it is pretty random and pointed, I would be all for CfDing it. I thought there were some equivalent articles/categories for other countries/ethnicities, but at the moment I can't find any. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As a start, I'm gonna prune it and see what happens; lumping the Tibetan Independence Movement with clearly racist legislation in the US (historic) isn't appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alexia resources

Hi Rjanag The Wiki Project Dyslexia is currently setting out its new proposals and objectives. And part of these new proposals is to include the Wikipedia Alexia (acquired dyslexia) series of articles in a more comprehensive range of articles covering the wider issues of dyslexia. This will mean a new summary version of the dyslexia to describe both Developmental Dyslexia and Alexia, with the majority of current content being moved to a new Developmental dyslexia article. The Alexia articles provide a great challenge as most can only be considered as stubs, and many more may need to be created. I was wondering if you or one of your linquistic colleagues to help us describe and help with citations for the phycholinguistic models of reading and how they relate to the various sub types of Alexia with an aphasia. We have set up an Alexia resourses page as a working area before any articles are edited or created. dolfrog (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2009 Ürümqi riots /2

Hey, it looks like there's some broken code in the infobox of this page but I can't fix it or find the last clean edit. Can you take a look? Thanks! delldot ∇. 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to undo this (edit-protected). Somebody's experimenting with the main template; it broke most sub-templates. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gave it a temporary fix. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem was with {{Location map~}} and {{Location map China}}. It should be fixed now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

meetup?

Hi there,

I got your name from the Wikimedia:Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started Wikipedia:Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi I have a question, I created the page Greetings From E Street: The Story of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band and it is my first "Book" article I have created, However I am wondering where to go to find reliable sources for it. would I source amazon, or look for websites that have reviews?

Thanks Cjones132002 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, don't source Amazon, there is rarely anything to write that it is a good source for, and Amazon pages change frequently anyway. Look for professional reviews and coverage in newspapers, magazines, or journals; those are generally better than internet-only sources. The only book article I have worked on intensively is Harvard Girl; look at that for an example of reliable sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks!!!Cjones132002 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

quick witted

..yes you are Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Hearts Covenant

You just undid my last edit to Shadow Hearts Covenant on the basis it was too long for a plot summary, however you undid it back to an ending summary which was full of wrong information based on previous users interpretation. If you like I can try and make it as short as possible but I don't think adding an extra three lines that are very important to an already long plot summary is a big deal tbh mate, I'll try make it shorter but please don't undo it on the basis it made the article a little longer, correct info that's a 3 lines longer must be better than incorrect info right?

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.39.198 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD

Well, in your edit summary you didn't say you've bring it to the talk page, so I was fully unaware of those happening in the talk page. So I undid your revert and wrote my reply in the edit summary. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, later I realized your comment on the discussion page and I wrote my complement to others' replies to you, to make my undid fully reasonable and fair.

• And now that you currently do not have any objection to my complement, I'll undid your second revert (plus, your 2nd revert occurs after my explain (and those edit summaries), I assume-good-faith-ly consider you did your 2nd revert before seeing my explains) - just until your next objection appeared on the talk page and revert it (Rjanag, 接招 ^~^). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Turfan

On the balance of the weight of argument, and acquaintance with the English literature of Central Asia. One side (although consisting of a single editor) presented actual evidence; the other declamation. You then presumed to close a move in which you had argued at length; I see no signs that outside opinion was solicited, or that it would have supported this improper move.

If you use admin powers on this dispute again, I will consider what form of WP:dispute resolution is most suitable to the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Turfan, you deleted Turpan in order to conduct a move war. You crowned this by appealling to CSD G6 in order to justify a deletion you knew was controversial.

I don't feel like going to ANI today;however, please don't use admin powers around me again, or be prepared to explain it there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples of material needing explanation in Input/Output Configuration Program

You added a cleanup tag to Input/Output Configuration Program. If you have time, would you mind starting a new section in Talk:Input/Output Configuration Program and identifying specific terms that need to be defined or statements that need more background?

In the meantime I'll see what I can do about beefing it up. Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It may help you to read WP:LEDE, the guideline on writing article introductions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are six references in OS/VS2 (SVS) - why the {{unreferenced}} tag?

You added an {{unreferenced}} tag to OS/VS2 (SVS), but the article has six references:

• IBM, OS/VS2 Single Virtual Storage Features Supplement, GC20-1753.
• IBM, OS/VS2 Planning And Use Guide, GC28-0600.
• IBM, OS/VS & VM/370 Assembler Language: VS2 Rel 1.6, 1.7, GT33-4010.
• IBM, OS/VS Dynamic Support System: VS2 Release 1.6, 1.7 (GC28-0640-0), GT28-0640.
• IBM, IBM System/360 and System/370 Asymmetric Multiprocessing System: General Information Manual, Program Number 360A-CX-15X, GH20-1173.
• IBM, OS/VS2 HASP II Version 4 System Programmer's Guide Program 370H-TX-001, GC27-6992.

What is the reason for the tag? Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice them; had only seen the Notes section. I've changed it to {{refimprove}}, as the article is still mostly unreferenced. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And, if you have a time, please do check the deleted talk page history, to see, when I added a comment about copying and pasting the text from PD book, and when I was attacked for plagiarism. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What sort of BS is this?

So Zujine et all can just waltz right in and remove anything he dislikes, yet I have to gain his consensus to make any changes? There is a serious double standard here.--PCPP (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about one edit or making one change. You know very well that this particular one is a contentious change that has been argued about for weeks, and more than one editor has contested it. (One example, right before your revert.) You yourself have fought repeatedly to add this, so you know it's opposed. You can't just, in your words, "waltz in" and make whatever edit you like when you know there is ongoing debate at the talk page about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet large scale changes and removals like this by Zujine are perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that I contested it? And did you even see the argument on the talk page? The source is well attributed by NPOV standards, and yet Olaf insists on its removal by some fallacious argument that it is "a minority view", which he has yet proved. Yet he has no problem with adding Michael Savage's passing comments despite the fact that Savage has no expertize on the subject. If you're going to get involved at least be impartial and examine both sides.--PCPP (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not responsible for other editors' behavior, only your own. Saying "but so-and-so is doing it too" is never an excuse for your own edit-warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But it takes two to tango? Am I rite?--PCPP (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Children of the Stars

• Tks for the help. I've been meaning to clean that up a bit, but just didn't get around to it. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 13:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem! By the way, I found some stuff that might be useful if you're interested in making an article of Beijing Stars and Rain:

• their website
• Articles on Baidu Baike and Hudong. (neither has references, though, so I don't know how directly useful they will be)
• very recent news article
• another article, this one seems to only have a passing mention though

rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tks again. That's probably next on the list, but right now I'm struggling trying to get some OTRS things to happen, in order to help Children of the Stars... thanks! • Ling.Nut 14:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ROC

Please offer your objections here--LLTimes (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop edit warring

I worked with a few editors, actually, on "The Fly" page on the contribution you are unilaterally removing. I've read your edit history and you seem to have a history of confrontation with regards to edits you simply don't like. Try working out your differences with us on the talk page. Then we can vote or build a consensus. This unilateral edit you keep fighting was already resolved after an editor turned down (twice) to semi-protect the page and, instead, suggested "dispute resolution." So lets talk this out on the discussion page first, please, and then decide whether to alter or remove the contribution. Also accusing me of sockpuppetry violates "good faith". I'm not discussing this on the other user's page. I think he/she confused you with the anon editor who was previously defacing the page with an absurdly long plot summary and other changes. I would like to work with you and others toward making a good page. So let's start a dialogue about this, before defacing the page, in accordance with the admin's suggestion (which is well documented on the talk page as well). Thx.75.174.134.45 (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reverted, 3RR given Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

'Wat' do u want from me? Consensus?? :-/ Dreaded hall monitor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Uh, you don't create consensus. What I want from you is to respond to my multiple attempts to have a discussion. If you have time to revert war, then you have time to respond to messages left on your talk page and the article talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did you "work with a few editors"? I read through the discussion there, there is no discussion of the passage in question. All the long discussion is about the AIDS symbolism, not about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

stop vandalizing my talk page. i will do a different edit if you promise 2 stop whining, oh-kay?Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments asking for discussion are not vandalism; nor are edits whose content you disagree with. I suggest you read WP:What vandalism is not, as you and IP 75.174.134.45 both overuse that term on talk pages and in edit summaries. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First warning regarding WP:Accusations of Bad Faith

knee-jerk comments accusing me of being a 'sock' in a discussion certainly are vandalism when they unnecessarily spill onto my talk page courtesy of u; as are edits whose content wasn't mine to begin that you want to blame on me. i suggest you read WP:Assume Good Faith, as you and your ego both overuse confrontational tactics on talk pages and in edit summaries with other users when a friendly "Hello, was up w/that edit?" would've sufficed before deleting other's work.

highlights on your own talk page about your lifelong confrontational behavior include>>>

"If you're going to get involved at least be impartial and examine both sides."

"Hi Rjanag. I must ask you to desist from hounding and personal attacks. This has gone much too far. These are core polcies in Wikipedia and as an admin you should know better. Any further incidents and I shall have to make a formal report."

"Erasing everything doesn't help with pinpointing the problem. Do certain words frighten you. Fear is very understandable."

"I think that you are holding back and censoring verified sources on Wiki entries."

there are more instances of course but i'm not going to list them all, take too long. since you've been here so long maybe you've become complacent. refresh yourself and read WP:HUMAN for basic etiquette toward anonymous users. do yourself a favor and lighten up. this is supposed 2 be fun too.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would you leave that horse alone or would you like to discuss your edits at SPI? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Confrontational tactics" and "assuming bad faith"? I find it hilarious that I'm getting chided for that by a guy whose first interaction with me was to call me a "pov vandal".

The content issue at the article has already been resolved, so there is no further reason for you to continue ranting here. Any further posts from you I will probably be remove, and if you really do want to continue this then be ready for me to open an WP:SPI, although to be honest you and IP 75.174.134.45 could nearly be blocked for socking on the basis of behavioral evidence alone. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Rjanag! Thanks for the birthday greetings. I'm actually working in China now behind the great internet firewall so it is difficult to access pages on Xinjiang, Tibet etc, but I still try. So make sure to keep up the editing on your end. Take care. David Straub (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working in Hangzhou. I'm setting up an AP program at a local school here. A couple of weeks ago I met some Uyghurs from Hotan selling melons on the street next to my apartment. I sat down with them for a couple of hours and talked with them. It was funny because about 50% of the people walking by thought I was a Uyghur :)David Straub (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NIC in ROC

National identity cards in China - could you add Pinyin for ROC? TruckCard (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you ask for my help, after edit warring with me across multiple pages? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged CSD for Resident Identity Card; it's in the way of a move (I intend on reverting the problematic move). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a sock circumventing a block (as assessed through WP:DUCK) using a dynamic IP. Dun dun. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see...I got the first one but hadn't noticed the second.

Here's what really takes the cake. I don't know if this guy is actually stupid, or just being annoying on purpose. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the thing to do is get an uninvolved admin from ANI or somewhere and hopefully they can speed up the process by deleting the page (to make room for moving everything back to where it belongs) and then protecting what's left. That might be simpler than trying to block all the IPs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking semi-protection; blocking the IPs is useless, as all he can do is reset his router, and he'll have a new IP. Where do I go to request for this? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:RFPP should be fine rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

nvm, looks like it's already been done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be heading off to bed now, unfortunately. It's 12:38AM, and I have an anatomy/physiology lecture at 8 in the morning. I'll see how all this turns out by tomorrow then. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, good luck. I have to log off too in a moment, but I'll try to keep checking back throughout the morning. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the birthday greeting--Tony Winward (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: usertalk

Hi,

Apologies, that certainly wasn't my intention. Walking in the areas I added to has been overlooked on their wiki pages, and so I thought to add a link for further reading that I have found useful hoping others would follow suit.

Thank you for the suggestion of raising the topic in discussion first (is this done in much the same way as I am messaging you now?).

Best

Billjohnsonwalko (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

apparently it is. right, cheers

Billjohnsonwalko (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Linguistics#...language

Responded at.. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for Min Chueh Chang article

Hi Rjanag, I was randomly going through articles and noticed a slow month long revert issue on Min Chueh Chang. It is possible for you to assess if its a issue with the article, if so change the status of the article from no protection to semi-protection? or do I have to go through the process with WP:SILVERLOCK? Thanks. Takamaxa (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned both of them; if it continues I'll have to decide whether to protect the page or block both of them. Both methods would be equally effective (since it's a dispute between just 2 users right now, blocking both of them would stop the edit warring; then again, since no one else seems to be editing that article anyway, protecting it wouldn't cause much disruption either); I tend not to believe in punitive blocks, but in this case the behavior is so deplorable the editors kind of do deserve it... rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, thanks for your quick response. I wasn't expecting the editors to be blocked at all. (wasn't my intention at all) but since your the administrator, thats your discretion. Thought warnings would be enough or a silverlock on the page to slow down ip edits. I agree with you about punitive blocks, it shouldn't be a punishment but a last resort to prevent further disruption. I hope the editors can discuss on the talk page about sourcing references for the WP:BLP article concerned.

Takamaxa (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Probably I should have kept my big mouth shut. I was just struck by the magnitude of your claim about this very ordinary word; which is surprising considering how smart you are, and a linguist to boot. See here for mucho examples of its use, including the Prez. Anyway, now that you know - no hard feelings, bud? Textorus (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You might notice that almost all the examples of its use are in the middle of an idiom, "fullness of time" (and one is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson). "Fullness" means very little in itself (apart from the obvious 'full + ness', which could mean many different things depending on the context), which is why I pointed out to the OP that we can't provide a good translation without any context. As is standard procedure at the reference desk, though, people are more interested in finding little flaws in other peoples' posts than in addressing the question that was actually posed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tibet photo in the Standard Mandarin article.

Hi, Rjanag, I've appreciated your comments about and your work on the [Standard Mandarin]] article. I notice a photo of a banner outside a school in Tibet urging use of Mandarin gets inserted and deleted from time to time. I'm sure the image is controversial (because the underlying policy is controversial), but I'd like to hear from you what you think the rationale is for not posting the image. I get the impression that American readers (who perhaps make up a plurality or even a majority of readers of English Wikipedia) could learn something about current official policy in the P.R.C. from that image, which might help them better understand the situation in the western regions now under P.R.C. sovereignty where ethnic Han people are numerically in the minority. I'll learn something from you whatever you say, so I'm asking without precondition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to this removal, the photo was copyrighted and the uploader didn't have permission to upload it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well then that is a clear-cut case. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Re:Teaching to the test

Thanks! Actually, the article was created back in 2006, but it was prodded - I was quite surprised to see no one had recreated it since then. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Bhutan-Nepal relations

Hi - I've proposed an alternative at T:TDYK that I think should address your concerns. Shiva (Visnu) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are in error

There's too many subtopics to this whole DYK mess.

Point: I do a lot of tinkering with the DYK template on a regular basis. This is not what's being objected to.

Cirt restored a factually-inaccurate hook which I removed; however, I had not properly indicated that the hook was inaccurate. I have amended this, and apologised to Cirt for accusing him of violating POINT.

Please do not attribute motives to other people; it can make minor misunderstandings inflate into acrimonious disputes very quickly. You do not know why other people do things, and do not know whether or not someone understands a point - especially not when people are typing quickly so as to avoid edit conflicts. DS (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, with regard to above statements by User:DragonflySixtyseven about my edits, please see this comment by Gatoclass (talk · contribs), . Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said you had any "motives", DS. I just said you don't understand what several people (not just me) in that discussion are saying. That's not a "motive", that's a lack of competence. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that my actions are caused by not understanding. This is clearly an indication that you are motivated by your own ignorance, by your personal hatred for me, by your anti-Semitism, by your psychotic malice, by etc etc. Of course I understand why people are upset when an article they had hoped to present on DYK is removed; of course I understand why people are upset when they get an automatic notice that their article is on DYK but I've yanked it; of course I understand why it's annoying when I sidestep procedure to deal with what I perceive as a serious problem but others disagree with me as to how serious it is. Do you understand why it's annoying when one is forced to make a quick response so as to not get jammed by an edit conflict FOUR TIMES IN A ROW, and then people seize on infelicitous wordings in the one response that got through and they build entire fallacious arguments on those infelicities? And for the record, I do not seriously believe that you are ignorant, hateful, anti-Semitic, psychotic, or malicious; I said those things because CLEARLY you did not understand the notion of "attributing motive". I do, however, believe that you are in error. DS (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I was trying to respond to the statements here when I got edit-conflicted and then Cirt moved the whole mess to AN. on Please reference the appropriate diffs instead of ones partway through a conversation; otherwise you may unwittingly mislead participants in discussions. DS (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Query

With regards to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, it would be helpful to find prior discussion about disruption of DYK processes by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) (if such exist), and list them at that AN thread. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful if you were to identify the precise reasoning for each such incident, and to make the proper distinctions between incidents which were the result of BLP issues and those which were the result of circumstances over which there can be an honest disagreement. It would be even more useful if you could take the time to respond to my statements, because if you have the time to respond to other people's posts and to search archives then you should have the time to respond to mine and to address and rebut each of my points cogently and rationally. I look forward to reading your statements when you have the time to make them; I am certain that they will be well-argued and persuasive. One last suggestion is that you edit Wikipedia, but I understand all too well that managing the emotional and interpersonal drama that comes with such a project can take priority. DS (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing template

Hi. :) I think this is a good idea, but it's going to lead to some complications as is because articles tagged with that template are now sneakily listed at the copyright problems board via bot. :) The ones paraphrasing PD sources aren't copyright concerns, of course, so they really shouldn't be there. Plus, since I wouldn't be yanking the content, they'd come back over and over again. :/ Are you good enough with templates and cats and things to perhaps create a separate category other than Category:Articles with close paraphrasing for them to go into? Maybe Category:Articles with close paraphrasing of public domain sources? Is it even possible to have the category switch based on parameters? If that's not up your alley, I'll see if I can find somebody who can help. Certainly, I have no clue. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I'm not too familiar with how this bot works either, but I'll leave a message with the bot operator to see if he can give more information. Presumably the bot recognizes some text within the template and uses that to decide what articles to list at WP:CP; once I know what bit of text that is, it should be a simple matter to make that text not show up if the |free= parameter is activated in the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This might solve the problem. (In plain English, what it says is "if free=yes, then put this article in the category Articles with close paraphrasing of public domain sources; otherwise, put it in the category Articles with close paraphrasing.) You can see what it looks like on Elsham Priory. (One issue is that the category page currently doesn't exist...for the main close paraphrasing categories, I don't know if those are created by bot or what...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, either. :D But I think that could work. I'll check with User:VernoWhitney. If I'm remembering correctly, it's his bot that lists them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be User:Schutz, who operates Zorglbot; that's the one that shows up the most in the page history for WP:CP. I'm not sure how active he is right now so I went ahead and sent him an e-mail. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my bot and as it's currently written it just lists every single new transclusion of the template. I should be able to set it up to simply ignore any taggings which include "|free=yes" in the parameter and that would keep it off of the copyvio lists entirely (and I'll try coding that right now so we can see if Elsham Priory gets listed or not here in a few hours). As far as the categories go, they seem to be created manually (although I have no idea why). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I'll keep my eyes open and see what happens. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently my code worked, so as long as that param stays the same you can tweak the categories or whatever strikes your fancy and articles tagged that way still shouldn't be listed at the copyright board. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

About an account you blocked

Turns out an account you blocked, User:Ninthwhen has a ton of sockpuppetsДунгане (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• This message or a similar one left on several editors' talk pages (see forex User talk:Nlu); Дунгане advised to collect hard evidence and take it to WP:SPI if the problem continues • Ling.Nut 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the User:Phoenix7777 account is making the the claim here that since you said User:ninthwhen was not one of his possible socks, that the other accounts where not socks either. I remember you only stated that Ninthwhen was a different person, and said nothing about the status of the other accounts. This guy is putting words into your mouth, can you make a comment on the case there?Дунгане (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Palindromes

Thanks for the palindromes! I waste so much worrisome energy on vandals that I forget about all the great editors out there. Praise Thor! PalindromeKitty (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ni hao

I have closed the AFD and soft redirected it. For future reference, to soft redirect an article to wiktionary, replace the text with this...

{{wi}} {{subst:longcomment}}

You originally did this...

{{wiktionary|ni hao}}

...which makes it look like a blank article. That may be why the IP reverted it. Not to worry, I didn't know this either until I looked it up before closing the AFD :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I realized that too when I saw your edit...hopefully this time it remains redirected :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bird is equal to and/or greater than the word

Do you not agree sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.211 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia articles are not a place for making jokes. You may be very funny, but you can be funny somewhere else. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

You do realize that Mediation requires my active consent and cooperation, don't you? Removing my side of the issue and wheelwarring are unlikely to secure either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be. But the one thing that will make rejection absolutely certain is if I decline it. You give me no incentive to accept the prospect of spending time with you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson

Your concerns about Pmanderson's behaviour seem to ring true in the various times I've seen him at ANI lately. Issues like that are not really well resolved at the edit warring board (though Courcelles's solution seems good to me), but I recognize that they are serious. I really am beginning to think Pmanderson needs a serious warning, followed by a lengthy block if he continues his behaviour. Unfortunately, I myself have had at least one naming dispute with Pmanderson and I'm a tad concerned my level of involvement, as low as it is, would still undermine any such warning. What I would like to see happen would be for an admin with no history of content disputes with him to issue a warning and then follow through as needed. Those are my thoughts at this point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take it to ANI because at the time it was a content dispute, not something that needed admin intervention (although it seems admin intervention may now be the only way to stop him from edit warring--I thought consensus would end the issue, but he is still edit warring in spite of rather obvious consensus after the RfC at the talk page). Anyway, we'll see what happens after a move request is filed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with consensus, in my observation, is that someone can always claim "consensus" or "no consensus". And since Wikipedia is "not a vote", it can be hard to come up with objective proof that you have consensus on your side. Which sucks. Those are just my thoughts on the matter, you take or leave them. The move request may help by getting some more eyes on the matter, anyway, so let's hope for the best, eh? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can claim consensus, but sometimes consensus is one direction is obvious, as it will be to anyone who reads the RfC (unfortunately, people usually don't take the time to do that). I made the mistake of WP:IARing with what I assumed was obvious consensus, but I guess now I'll just have to step back and jump through all the time-consuming hoops of move requests, further RfCs, etc. Unfortunately, everything seems to go in one of Pmanderson's ears and out the other, so I'm afraid even when there is another clear consensus he might not stop edit warring without formal injunctions; it certainly would not be the first time. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope it doesn't come to that, but who knows. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd have to jump to ANI so soon, but this edit of his was far from appropriate (see the new section header at the bottom of the diff). It probably looks like forum-shopping, but I'd rather take the behavior issue there and leave the article talk page free for people to discuss the important issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Four boxes of liberty

See Template talk:Did you know#Four boxes of liberty. What is the duration to establish status quo? This would be useful on future AfD rescues that seem to have DYK potential. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should this be used as a test case on a discussion to clarify the 5x rule? I am in favor of simple and objective criteria. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Not that it matters, but I thought I'll drop in and leave a note about your signature. I use Google Chrome and don't seem to be able to make out the 'j' part of your signature. It comes out strange. Perhaps you could think about changing it if other users face the same issue with your signature. Like I mentioned, I have no issues per se. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "comes out strange"—what are you seeing? Is it a box, error symbol, or some other kind of mojibake, or is it just a different character? It's not supposed to be a <j>, it's intentionally a (the IPA symbol for a Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate), so if that's what you're seeing then it's ok. If not, it may be that you are missing some font in your browser, although I don't think any fancy fonts are needed for this character. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi :) You're absolutely right. I was and am seeing ; I didn't quite workout that perhaps you had intended it to look like that :) No sweat and nice seeing you around. Thanks and best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 12:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

"i have plenty of time to respond to you, DS, I just don't want to"

I thought what triggered this whole mess was that I was not properly engaging in discussion regarding controversial decisions. I am attempting to resolve a difficult issue, and to promote reconciliation; I would appreciate it if you do not prematurely declare portions of the conversation to be 'closed' while the imbroglio on AN continues. I do hope you can understand my concern over this, and look forward to reading your rebuttal. DS (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is mortifying. I forgot to include the most important statement, which is that I have already conceded the point regarding hooks. I'm terribly sorry, and I do hope that this hasn't prolonged the misunderstanding. DS (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the imbroglio is closed, so you can archive this post if you want to. Incidentally, thank you for mentioning (and thus leading me to learn about) mojibake. DS (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. There is a difference between "properly engaging in discussion" and "repeating yourself ad nauseum while not listening to anyone else".
2. Sarcastic apologies are neither necessary nor appreciated.
3. No need to thank me for something I didn't do for you.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neuilly sa mère !

On 7 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neuilly sa mère !, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

You are just terrible

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

Interesting. If you are expecting me to amend my terrible behavior, though, or apologize for something terrible I've done, then I can't do that if I don't know who you are and what incident you're referring to. If you're referring to this then, well, you were given warnings and had ample opportunity to stop breaking the rules. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Rjanag's Day!

Rjanag has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Rjanag's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Rjanag! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise; thank you! rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

let me know when that book comes in - very definitely Public Domain!

hey,

Be sure 'n let me know when that book comes in, OK? I'm anxious to avoid letting those two images be deleted. They are far and away the best images in the article (as evidenced by the fact that one of them sits atop the page), and are very definitely Public Domain, but dammit, we have to prove it! Tks! • Ling.Nut 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! I requested it last week so it should be in soon (it's already taken longer than usual). If it's time-sensitive, though, you could also try leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎; someone there might be able to get it even faster. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tks for getting that.
• I'm disappointed that the two photos are not in it... if you wanna do a huge public service, you could cross-check to see which of the images are in the digital records of the university of Tokyo (e.g., this one) or this blog (the photos are the same, I think) and move all of those to Commons as they are PD. That might take a couple days, so if you don't wanna do that, you could scan the whole book and email it to me. That might take an hour or more, so if you don't wanna do that, then, Belated Happy Moon festival! :-P I sincerely appreciate your help in obtaining that book. [You don't have to do anything at all if you don't want to. No worries.] • Ling.Nut 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Do you still have the book? • Ling.Nut 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep, still got it. I'm planning on scanning all the pages with pictures on them and sending them to you, I just haven't gotten around to it yet :( . I'll try to have it done by the end of the weekend. 23:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry to bother you.... any hope for those images, plus the scan of the page that says they were published before 1923? Tks • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, I still have the book but I haven't made it to the library recently, the past couple weeks got pretty crazy. (Actually I meant to scan these on Friday, the one time I did make it to the library, but then I ran into a colleague and got delayed.) I'm going on campus today so I'll try to do it then when it's still fresh on my mind. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Taste response

Sorry about that revert. I don't really understand why you deleted the factoid from the article, but I should have mentioned this instead of simply reverting your edit.

I hope to convince you that you should at least consider replacing the deleted portion. I believe it is well supported by its citation, that it acts as an interesting hook, and that it enriches the article by including a non-Western perspective. But as I won't revert your edits, it is up to you to decide if the article will or will not include it :)

I don't think the statement made is an over-generalization or, in fact, even a generalization of the source material. The cited article reads, "For one thing, Kraft learned that traditional Oreos were too sweet for Chinese tastes" and, "Some Chinese consumers still find the Oreos too sweet. One 30-year-old consumer who was shopping for groceries in the eastern part of Beijing recently, said that he likes the cookie but that 'many of my friends think I am a bit weird to stick to Oreo cookies, as most of them think it too sweet to be accepted.'"

These statements safely support the notion that sweetness, a highly desirable taste in The West, is not as favored in China. And, while acknowledging that China does not comprise The East, I don't believe a statement like, "sweet may not be a highly favored taste in The East" is a generalization of that notion. Instead it is an assumption that follows from it, and worded in a way that the citation supports it.

I don't think that replacing "The East" with "China" would fit well in the broader context of the article, and I do think that the assumption made is valid. Because tastes usually vary little region-to-region, and because Chinese tastes do not favor sweet, it can be hypothesized that this may be true throughout Asia. So I urge you to consider replacing that part of the article. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still an overgeneralization. First of all, this is only one example—you can't draw sweeping conclusions based on one data point (a random quote from a random person on the street). Secondly, even if that conclusion were valid, it's still only about one food in one country, not about sweetness in general or about East Asia in general. Thirdly, it's not an academic study, just a commercial speculation; a much more reliable source would be a controlled study surveying attitudes towards tastes across cultures using a large and random sample. Trying to take one person saying "my friends are surprised I eat Oreos!" and extending that to "sweetness is disfavored in the East" is synthesis.

Finally, it's not even accurate. Indeed, Chinese cuisine includes less of what we think of as "dessert" foods (pies and cakes and cookies and such), but that doesn't mean people don't eat that; people eat sweet ice creams and sweet fruits all over the place, and companies like Orion make all kinds of sweet foods and people eat them. Someone saying 这个哈密瓜很甜呢！ is not saying a bad thing. It might be more accurate to say that Chinese people have less of a taste for the sort of processed sugar that is common in American snack food, but not for sweetness in general (and even that is a speculation). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really can't imagine you are giving my argument proper consideration. Statements that obviously misrepresent my argument make it seem that you are more concerned with disarming my contentions than responding to them as if they were valid.

Your argument has valid points, and I won't dispute the deletion. Fleetham (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are just terrible

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

Supriya

Can we continue the discussion here?

Also, why was I checkusered, and none of you?

What's the difference between all of us?

How do we know that one of you isn't Supriyya?

Fellowscientist (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You weren't checkusered. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well my name is under the suspected sockpuppets. Why not all of you too? If suspect me why not suspect you too? Fellowscientist (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Because, according to the users who opened the request for a checkuser, there was behavioral evidence, which means your editing patterns were similar to Supriyya's editing patterns. No one else here acts like Supriyya. Please consider reading some of the policy and guideline pages about sockpuppetry and checkuser requests before wasting any more time with silly questions like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Look

I don't really mean what I'm saying about post structural linguistics on the talk page. Taivo ignored my private message to him where I had explained this to him. But here's what. I'm just pretending that we want to restart the post structural linguistics page so that Supriya gets tempted to join in the conversation - and I want you to do the same. The whole post structural linguistics issue is absurd and total crap! Of course it doesn't belong to linguistics and I know! Supriya works here as an admin and we can get hold of her through this trick - and report her and ban her from using the Internet all together. Then she'd never be able to log on ANYWHERE. Legally. Just give this a shot. Pretend that you want to start the page and you've agreed. Once she comes on, we can track her computer. I know where her office is and where she sits; I can figure out its IP number too which you can tally with hers. Later, once she's out, we obviously don't need to start the page, or we can delete whatever we've started. Fellowscientist (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke.

I don't know if you're Supriyya or if you're a wannabe detective, but either way, please don't send me any more messages about Wikipedia sting operations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Finland-Swedish

A bit quick on the trigger, there? You reverted before I had added the ref... Please check it, not quite the same language, actually. --88.112.14.158 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the source you added (which, by the way, is just a Wikipedia article, which isn't appropriate for use as a reference) says it's just a variety of the same language. If you disagree, start a discussion at Talk:Mutual intelligibility and seek consensus there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

False etymology

No big deal - just that you put your comment in the survey, not the discussion area. I didn't want to presume to move it, since people editting my talk comments bothers the hell out of me.μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange

How come after you advise me to restrain, you put my name in a minor faith es? -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "minor faith es" is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor faith = somewhere between AGF and bad faith. es=edit summary. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kaster

Hello. Would you consider changing the protection level of Kaster before 24 Oct? You may be aware of some issues with that article so wanted to check with you before I did anything. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try decreasing it back to semi-protection. I did full-protection because there was ongoing vandalism from autoconfirmed users, and even though some of it is attributable to the page's being linked from reddit on that day, that same vandalism had also been going on before, so it's possible that it wasn't just a transient thing. We can see how semi-protection works out and then make a decision about whether it's necessary to fully unprotect it early... rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added some details.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Zh

Re. Shixunci (talk · contribs)

A new user, seeming to only contribute in Chinese. After warnings, blocked.

At the request of another user (helpme) I added a link to Chinese Wikipedia help.

Maybe you could add more?

Please see User_talk:Ka Faraq Gatri#Non-English Additions.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)!

I saw from here that it's been one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG, thank you, I didn't notice it, wow a year :D. Thnxs again.Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ILAMM

Good day

I am wanting to submit a page on ILAMM - a learning methodology - but have seen you have deleted a page about this topic before. Please could you give me some guidelines on what I can do so it is not deleted again. From what I see it was deleted because of copyright issues - is it not possible to take an existing definition and include it into Wikipedia?

Thanks for your assistance. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndptc (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

contrib-zh1

Hi. I have just had occasion, for the first time, to use {{contrib-zh1}}. Is there a reason why it gives the message twice, in almost-identical characters? is it perhaps Mandarin/Cantonese or is it a glitch? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The first is in simplified characters and the second is traditional. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Afd

I'm sorry about the whole silly argument, but you have to clarify what you mean by content issues. From what I've gleaned so far, your concerns seems to deal with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) issues (which is under [[:Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content)]], admittedly I should have linked to that page directly, instead of the more general WP:MOS). If you're not talking about layout, footnotes, formatting, notability, reliable sources... what's left?--hkr Laozi speak 05:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I admit my mistake, Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content) is not relevent, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) is. ( I'm still relatively new at this. :) )But you should clarify what you mean by content issues! I know it reads like an essay, but what specific guidelines does it violate, if not MoS?--hkr Laozi speak 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just realised you're an admin. I've been debating with an admin on policy... D: --hkr Laozi speak 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The content issues are as I said in the opening statement: the article reads like a personal essay and a review of recent literature, which is nice in a science journal but is not really a useful encyclopedia article. If you want a short, punchy guideline, try Wikipedia is not a scientific journal.

As for admin status, that doesn't really matter. An admin is just someone who has a few extra buttons on their interface, that doesn't automatically make them more knowledgeable or authoritative on policy or content issues, so don't worry. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Forensic Linguistics

With regard to the changes that you reverted on the Forensic Linguistics page, what did you mean by "..strange addition of personal opinion in the middle of a footnote"? Do clarify, because I don't recall adding any personal thoughts or the like. I am part of a larger group of students improving that page for a school project, so edits will be made bit by bit and in a series.

We would appreciate it if you could hold off on reverting or making minor stylistic changes until we have finished, as it disrupts the flow of whatever we intend to add. If you have comments on the content, you can make them on my user page. Nashrian (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See the diff. It's pretty obvious; you added "There are, however, limitations in using forensic linguistic. [sic]", and it was in the middle of a footnote, I don't know how I can be much more clear.

That is an unqualified and unreferenced statement thrown randomly into the middle of the article with no attempt to create a transition or to integrate it into an appropriate place. Such a statement might be ok if it's used as a transition into an actual referenced discussion listing what some of these limitations are, but in the edit in question you just plunked it down in a random spot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As for your school project, I applaud your work and will try not to affect your grade, but you do need to realize that Wikipedia is a dynamic project and no article on Wikipedia is going to put itself on hold for the sake of someone's project or grade. You are more than welcome to edit the article (and in fact constructive improvements would be much appreciated; that article is quite poor and could use your attention) but your edits will still be subject to the same expectations as everyone else's. Most of these expections are just common sense, like the issues I described above. But for less intuitive issues, Wikipedia has a vast network of guideline pages that discuss every possible; WP:MOS is a good starting point that will lead you on to many other relevant pages. If you or any of your classmates have questions about any editing guidelines or expectations, feel free to leave me a message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be okay to remove some of the improvement tags on the Forensic Linguistics page now? Reorganization has been done and most of the grammar has been edited.Nashrian (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, all those issues are still relevant. The grammar is still quite poor (I've only done a cursory sweep through the earlier text, and the new text your classmates added today still has problems), many paragraphs are completely unreferenced, and the article is still not intuitively organized (particularly, it has unclear and unhelpful sections like "other general issues"). I assume you are in a hurry to get the tags removed because the article is being evaluated today for your class, but it is not my fault that you and your classmates more or less waited until yesterday to start doing any substantial work on it. The article will not reach Good Article status before the evaluation because the GAN process takes several weeks to complete. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? GAN? No we're not looking for GAN but I do think the tone and reorganization have been greatly improved from what it was when it first began. Any suggestion for the "Other general issues" heading? Just that the many books & journals that we use mention those "issues" a lot so it should be worth including. Nashrian (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

They have improved, but still not enough. As I pointed out, the article still has many problems and needs a review by an experienced editor. For the most part you and your classmates have added a lot of new material but not cleaned up what was already there. As for the "general issues" heading, which you have now changed to "Additional forensic linguistics concepts", what makes these any different from the other concepts described in the article? Why are they separated out into their own section? And what is a "concept" or an "issue" anyway? These terms are too vague. Try to think clearly about what the things you are describing are and how they are related, and that will help you figure out how to best organize the article. Simply throwing a lot of material into the article haphazardly doesn't necessarily count as "improvement". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Rjanag's Day!

User:Rjanag has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Rjanag's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Rjanag! Peace, Rlevse 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

my copyright contributer investigation

This investigation of my contributions- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане has been dragging on for a while with absolutely no one looking into it. Its been over a month since i last checked it, and two months since another user was checking. I would like to get it cleared up soon, do you have time to check the articles off if they are copyvio or not? ( i can't do it all myself of course, because they would be a conflict of interest). I would like to clear up the copyvio and rewrite if there is any rather than it being all deleted.Дунгане (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Turpan - Turks/ Turkish/ Turkic

Hi Rjanag. I am writing to you and Pmanderson as the two people I see most involved with the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpan. I believe it is against the 'rules' to 'lobby' other editors, but that is not what I am doing and I am doing this openly. A user has deleted the reference to the name Turpan in Turkish, stating that it has nothing to do with Turkey/ Turks/ Turkish. I pointed out that according to the article it does indeed. The user then went back to the article and removed all references to Turkish and replaced them with Turkic. I am not an expert on the subject, so, even though I know what the differences are between Turkish and Turkic, I am not in a position to judge in this speciifc case. I therefore am bringing it to the attention of the two of you. Best regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the historical stuff well, but as for today "Turkic" is indeed more correct than "Turkish". Turpan is very far away from Turkey.

As for Pmanderson, that editor is not actually "involved" in the article, he has just edit-warred over the title. Anyway, he's currently blocked for incivility. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 4, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Nothing to My Name.

Thanks! I hadn't even noticed that this qualified! rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

the issue is not resolved, please strike your comment

• See my post. Please strikethrough your comment that he issue is "long since resolved". • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know...

... that you can see 5000 old versions of a page at a time, if you add an extra 0 to 500 in the url?

It takes a while to load, but it's better than doing 500 at a time. SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Category of Cornish descent

I've been adding these categories to people either with recognised Cornish ancestry or distinctly Cornish names, like Annear. I will be happy to provide referencing. Bodrugan (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Category of Cornish descent

I've been adding these categories to people either with recognised Cornish ancestry or distinctly Cornish names, like Annear. I will be happy to provide referencing. Bodrugan (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of people categorised with various other ancestries that are not included/referenced in their articles. The Wikipedia rules on categorisation appear to only be as strict as you are suggesting for religious and sexual beliefs. Bodrugan (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

n+1

N+1 is a pretty well-respected journal, with a print and web presence- so it's not self-published. As for when I did the interview, it was in late April 2010. 109.157.171.247 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for advice!

Hi. Thank you for asking to correct the Creative Pedagogy page references (Nov 9, 2010). I did it and I truly appreciate your advice and help. Gem131 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I apologise for our earlier encounter on AfD, I shouldn't have emphasised MoS so much, and I do see your point. But now, I have a question regarding DYK, which you've been an very active participant of. How long does it take for the straw polls to close and for the proposals to be implemented? Is there an exact date, or does it vary depending on circumstance?--res Laozi speak 06:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Many are never implemented at all; straw polls are really more for roughly measuring consensus than for actually implementing it. The discussion that follows the poll will probably determine when and how the proposals are implemented. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the advice.--res Laozi speak 22:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Per primary topic, I have chosen to re-direct 承德 to Chengde (the prefecture) instead of mirroring what the Chinese wiki does. But as there apparently is a 承德县 and Japanese 承德, some form of a DAB ought to be kept. So I attempted to move 承德 to 承德 (disambiguation), but the move attempt failed. Thus, to avoid a copy-and-paste, I request that you execute this. Thanks. If this is invalid, sorry for the bother --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the persistent bother, but I have a new request. I have been able to do several move over re-directs, but this time it failed. "Kaiyuan City, Honghe, Yunnan" (ridiculous title) needs to be moved to just "Kaiyuan, Yunnan". No other "Kaiyuan"s of any sort in Yunnan, and it has been the norm on this Wiki to avoid using "City" for 市 in mainland Chinese city article titles if possible. And we both know that Chinese tend to only name the county and province that they are from, not the prefecture. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to review linguistics page - Internet Linguistics

Hi Rjanag,

I am redirected by Sasata from the FA nominations page to request for help from you to peer review the Internet Linguistics page. Here's the direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Internet_linguistics/archive1 Hope you can spare some time reviewing it so further improvements can be made to make the page better.

Thanks. Serenehj (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag, saw your comments. Will work on it. Serenehj (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet linguistics

I think you should complete Talk:Internet linguistics/GA1 to explain why you quick-failed. This will give some guidance to the nominator, which just removing the GAN template does not do. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I left him guidance at that article's PR, where I explained that it shouldn't be at PR and GAN at once. I assume he's seen it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PNAS Cover

Hello Rjanag,

I have been asked to update this page and our cover art every month. Is there any way I can update the PNAS cover image without having it immediately removed by you? Your assistance would be appreciated.

Smohin (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, Smohin, we had this same discussion more than a year ago. See your talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 23, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smohin (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag,

I uploaded a new PNAS cover (with updated masthead for 2010), to the PNAS wiki page using the guidance you provided. Please let me know if this is not correct.

Smohin (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambox

Hi. I reverted your change to Template:Ambox. Reason being that Ambox should never rely on numbered parameters (this was a strict design condition), as {{{text}}} is never guaranteed to be {{{1}}}, ie. if another parameter name was omitted. As this is a very heavily used template, please discuss any changes on the template's talk page first, and test them in the sandbox. Thanks. — Edokter • Talk • 01:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'm fine with your reverting. Thanks for letting me know. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Goshnan / Guxnan

Hi! I see that you're in Xinjiang. WikiProject Central Asia has Guxnan on its request page, and the Cuisine of Xinjiang page has dead links to Goshnan, which is probably the same thing. Would you be willing to start a stub page for the dish? Maybe after doing some firsthand research of eating some? :) Aelfthrytha (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed the same thing. I have a couple cookbooks which might be reliable-ish sources for a stub, so I'll put it on my to-do-list, but might not be able to do it until next month; right now I'm not doing much article writing, just watchlist monitoring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries -- articles about meat pies can definitely wait a month. Cheers! Aelfthrytha (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The project has also requested Uyghur History, Uyghur Clothing, Traditional, Uyghur Popular Music, a list of Famous Uyghurs, and Uyghur Politics. Any thoughts or redirects you'd suggest we create to fill in the blanks? Aelfthrytha (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Gymnastics and Age Eligibility Article

Stop trying to impose your views on others. I will be restoring the work I did. I also note that you have completely removed the age eligibility article from Wikipedia. Please restore or I will be reporting you for vandalism. Also the title should be fully restored as its more accurate and what was intended by the original author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.208.75 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that yet again you have changed the name of your own volition without consent. Wikipedia are about to delete the article and I have emailed them again in response to their kind email putting in a complaint about you and requesting that your account be suspended as you are evidently determined to impose your views on others as a kind of sockpuppet. Do not dare even contemplate changing the name back again or mess with this article again - Sportmania7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmania7 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem with vandal 79.97.171.208

This 79.97.171.208 is vandalizing many pages and something needs to be done about this habit of destroying serious peoples work who actually develop wikipedia.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That editor is not vandalizing; read What vandalism is not. This is a content dispute.

And, for what it's worth, I somewhat agree with his edit here. The wording did come off as POV. While it should have been rewritten rather than removed (to keep the intro clear), the IP is correct that the wording suggests that the "missing women" are victims of abortion, infanticide, or malnutrition; actually, other explanations have been proposed as well (see Talk:Missing women of Asia#Underreporting). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding this: you are incorrect, users have the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It would look less like vandalism if the user would use civil conduct and use the talk page to explain the position because when you see a pattern of "rmv pov" and the person is supected of being a sockpuppet, it doesn't sit right. Not to mention personal insults on my talk page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PNAS Classic papers info and cover update

Hi Rjanag,

Firstly, I would like to make clear that I am the Assistant Manager of Web Production and Design at PNAS trying to update our content on the Wikipedia page.

In response to your comments:

You mention "there is no need to keep updating the images at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article unless the journal has a major style or layout change, there is no need to upload new images over and over again." PNAS publishes on a weekly basis, and we would prefer the cover on the Wikipedia page be updated on a consistent basis to stay current. At present, the cover on our page is from 2009, which has a different masthead color than 2010, and would prefer updating the PNAS cover to reflect the 2010 volume. We also plan to make this cover update again in 2011 to reflect the new 2011 masthead color, and so on and so forth. I have followed the guidelines you have provided (uploading the PNAS covers to English Wikipedia with a fair-use rationale) and have made the appropriate updates to the PNAS cover image upon request from my superiors. Please let me know if this is not clear.

Your response to the inclusion of this list on the PNAS Wikipedia page is: "unnecessary, unencyclopedic laundry list, no clear inclusion criter[i]a, basically boasting. who determines which papers are "classic"? pretty sure this has been removed before." Thank you for your comments. To answer your question, the PNAS Classic Papers are carefully selected by our Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, and Associate Editors. This content should be included on the PNAS Wikipedia page and not removed. Thank you. Smohin (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Standard Mandarin

As you were a former participant of the late August and early September discussions to rename Standard Mandarin to "Modern Standard Chinese", you may be interested in participating in the proposed move at Talk:Standard Mandarin. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

---

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW if you want to block me, do it, because seems like you want to do or I am wrong? Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed where I clearly said "Personally I don't see a need for blocking because it looks punitive to me". Sorry, I'm not really interested in playing games right now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because I like to play to be blocked at 1am. Happy Thanksgiving Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

After this, you really, really think that he is not a disruptive editor, that he is a "white victim". Fortunatly the page is protected, otherwise he'd reverted to Simone again. You can see his contributions again and you'll see he refused to talk with othes or to contribute correctly. 4 Blocks for disruptive editing, unblocked per your request, do not take this personal, but 9/10 administrators would block him without hestitation. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said he wasn't a disruptive editor. I said that you were equally disruptive and that blocking would not have solved the problem at that moment. Stop putting words in my mouth. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to discussion for many reasons (the basic as you know, he won't talk). Behind: this three reverts, exist this IP which has pointed out why this is not a single, he (of course) w/o sources, has pointed nothing; A good artlcle that states what I told; an unexplained change from promo single to single after our featured article says "Speechless" was issued as a promotional single". He was blocked on es.wiki for "sabotaje" (WP:POINT here). He has pointed nothing with those three changes (only that he like to disrupte). If I cannot revert him with discussion (involving a good article and a featured article), Wikipedia fails WP:V with his editions. Furthermore, I won't wait one week for wait him unblocked or wait that after this block he will log in only for talk with me on his talkpage. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting in a content dispute is reverting in a content dispute. Unless you can point me to a talkpage discussion where there was a clear consensus on the wording to be used in that article (not to usages in other articles, or to the disputed article itself where you and Chelo have both raised sources that either contradict each other or say that the situation is more complicated than either of you make it out to be), unless you can do that, then this was clearly edit warring. Look, it's simple: instead of arguing with me about who's better and who's worse, just deal with the fact that your editing was not appropriate and try not to do it again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you post on my talkpage again, please proofread before saving; several times now you have editconflicted me because you keep modifying your posts just after saving them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the (edit conflict)s, a tip copy what you are saying anywhere, you never know whe someone will edit the same page. Backto topic. Exist practically no discussion about those issues per many reasons. On "Cheater", the discussion has been taken only on the main space by an IP and him. As you can see this "issue" started recently. and as you can see Chelo love to own articles, and recreate pages with no reason, that violates the main rules of musical articles (see WP:NSONGS). For the second, "This Is It", as the first, the issues started recently. but note that Chelo a) changed a good article that passed being a song, not a single and never was released as one and b)Chelo, beside tagging it as "minor" which is not, gave no reason nor sources for that change. Note also that the IP editor pointed what I said on my summary, Sony launched it as airplay single, which is not a commercial single, and therefore not a single. I never edited those pages and I saw his edits after seeing his fifth revert. For the third, the template. The worst of them he tagged a promotional single (perfectly sourced, it's a featured article) as a single with no reason, no summary and no source. The only thing I can say is, not threat me as the bad guy because I am not, neither Chelo. For some reasons he like to edit war and point, baseless. Unless you can point me to a talkpage discussion where there was a clear consensus on the wording I can't point you a talkpage, becuase those "issues" (that he created BTW) are not issues, three articles, one issue; An editor who cannot get a source, ho likes to edit war and WP:Point without a logical thinking. BTW, he want to be unblocked (maybe for revert me) so for once in his life he will try to demostrate why those three reverts are wrong. And if he is right, I'll revert myself. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not interested in hearing excuses. Read WP:EW; you are onlyu responsible for your own behavior, not others', and others' behavior doesn't give you a free ticket to revert war.

Also, you need to realize that good articles and featured articles are still articles and are subject to editing like any other ones. A user's edits aren't "vandalism" just because they were edits to a featured article. In particular, Good Article reviews are often not very rigorous, and the one in question didn't address the issue of single/song at all, so the fact that that article is a GA doesn't make it a stamp of approval for either wording. To put it simply, this is a content dispute, no matter how you try to paint it. Instead of wasting your time trying to tell me it's not, just familiarize yourself with the rules and make sure not to break them again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "painting" something, I'm adding the facts, a different thing is you have something against me, and I really don't give a damn about what is. I raised "this day" reverts to his talkpage, and I'm pretty sure he'll ignore me and wait until his unblock for re-start his edit wars again, and you'll be the first in know them. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep insisting I have "something against you", when all I did was point out that your editing was inappropriate, as did the other admin reviewing the case. Note that I did not block you even though you were edit-warring after a stern warning, and I also advised the other admin not to block you. If you want to keep playing the victim, have fun with that, but there is nothing more to say here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Tbhotch

I want to thank you for your warning at Tbhotch's talk page. This is not the first time that this user has edit-warred on this article. Hopefully, they take your warning seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

new paramater for Template:Zh

I have a new suggestion for Template:Zh-full, add another paramater, just like pinyin, for Xiao'erjing, which is arabic script used for writing chinese. it will be usefull on Hui related articles, and for names of mosques in China and other islamic related stuff like the Great Mosque of Xi'an.Дунгане (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. Added, rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to create a chart of a Pinyin/Xiao er jin comparison over at User:Дунгане/Xiao'erjing. I want to base it either on the chart at Cyrillization of Chinese or Pinyin table, or just adding a xiao er jin column onto the table at Comparison of Chinese romanization systems (obviously im doing it in my userspace and not in the article) The table will make it extremely easy to fill in the xiao er jin paramater on other articles, since i will basically just need to look up the pinyin. I have a rudimentary understanding of the arabic writing, I don't have any arabic language keyboard, but there are arabic transliteration keyboards online i use, but its still going to be a headache with the typing. I notice that you speak uyghur, which uses arabic writing, do you by any chance have access to a keyboard like that?Дунгане (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You can get the Oyghan Uyghur keyboard at http://www.bizuyghur.com/oyghan/Downloads/ (UUIME10SETUP.EXE). I'm not sure if it would have everything needed for Xiao'erjing, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is a Hanyu Pinyin to Xiao'erjing convertor here.

Otherwise, there is an online Uyghur keyboard here. --Jose77 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(As for Uyghur input, there's a similar tool here; it's not actually a keyboard but a converter. Maybe more convenient if you know ULY, but probably less convenient if you don't.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential WikiProject Xinjiang

What do you think of this start-up? I was thinking it would be an analog to Dr. Blofeld's creation of WikiProject Tibet. If you have no particular opposition to it, I will create a sub-page for potential participants to come on in. Thanks. And BTW, I chose you especially because of your work with the 7-5 incidents. I may well get to asking the other major editors of that article. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

pageview stats

Rjanag--I noticed your remarks about pageview stats here. Do you know if there is an easy way to get pageview stats for an arbitrary article? Thanks for your time.Foobarnix (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For a random article? I don't know anything about that; I didn't make the pageview stats tool, the page you linked to is just some simple instructions I wrote to help people find how to use it to get stats for their article. The tool is run by User:Henrik, so he might know more about this (he's probably easier to reach through his account on Swedish Wikipedia). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? At the top of the history page for *any* article you should see a line called 'External tools.' At the end of that line you should see 'Page view statistics.' Hope I am not missing something obvious... EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I wasn't sure if Foobarnix was asking about that or how to get get stats for a random article...I guess what you are talking about makes more sense, I don't see why anyone would ever really want to get random pageview stats. (I've been in and out of airports for the past few days and am jetlagged, so I probably am not making much sense these days!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Adminbars

Template:Adminbars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I know I am such a inresponsible editor and my thanks to editors like you for showing my mistakes. So here's a Wikilove to an actual responsible editor unlike myself. By the way, I hope the edit notice is more to your liking. I don't like to disappoint other editors. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

		Mmm - Milk!
		A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy! Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

article notability on Appa and Momo

If you feel the article isn't notable that's fine, like I said I did not do anything new. There already was a article on Appa and back then there was no external link sources and the strange thing is you never complained about it's notability then. What is up with that?!?! − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore I am one of the few that did question Appa's notability as well as every other character in the show instead of Aang. So don't think this matters to me. The only reason why I want it kept is because it is an interesting read. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically complaining about the Appa article; I was complaining about the fact that you also added the Momo material, which there was consensus to redirect elsewhere. This looks like a sneaky way to restore a non-notable article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to redirect Momo. I merged him in my own free will. Ozai was the one that had a consensus and when that happened I lost faith in the Momo article. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Check this revision, I wish I explained why then but the reason is because Ozai was AFD'd with the result was merge, I merged this article and this article wasn't really that great by itself anyways. Another reason why I created the duplicated article. A lot of their stories are similiar like them being Aang's pets and being named after a fruit so I thought it would work. If you don't like the new article I may put it back if there is any nay sayers. The only reason why I ain't is because User:Parent5446 seems to like it though. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright information of the image updated

Salam again,

I also added this note on http://ukij.org/html: "This image is designed by Waris Abdukerim Janbaz and is under LGPL license. It can be freely shared without prior authorization.". Please let me know if you need more remarks. If no other comments, please avtivate all my contributions. cheers! Oyghan (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: 月亮代表我的心

Thanks, I enjoyed creating this article. It was a song from my childhood :)

I also appreciate you cleaning it up afterwards and agree with the changes you made. - PM800 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

thx

just checked my email; thanks! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Resident Identity Card#Identity cards in ethnic minority areas

Hello Rjanag. I was wondering: are you still in Xinjiang? If you still are, are you able to (if and when possible) have a look at a PRC ID Card for a local Xinjiang resident, and be able to note the Uyghur text that appears on it for entries like name, gender, etc? (it can be anyone, so it's best to find a Han or someone you know well, as Uyghurs might become a little weary if foreign tourists ask to look at your ID). I was after official Uyghur translations of each of the headings on the ID card, so that I could include it within my table in the JMSFZ article. I suppose you could use a photograph or a text note if you are familiar with the language. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm back in BJ now, but my friend I was visiting is still in Xinjiang, so I could probably get him to take a photo of someone's ID and then add the translations to the article. He has a lot of Uyghur friends there, so I don't t hink it'll be a problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(OT:) by the way, if you're at an internet cafe in China, be careful as some of them might have keyloggers, as I have heard from a few university IT students. Check Windows Task Manager if you can for unexplained programs running. (relevant to WP:SECURITY, but also applies to anything else you may use as well, such as email and banking) Using https://secure.wikimedia.org/ (in case there are listeners) and changing your passwords when you get back might also be important. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Three(?) major subdivisions of linguistics

Hey Rjanag,

You noted in your edit to the Linguistics article "if you're gonna create this arrangement, don't call it 'grammar', which neglects structure/form-related fields like phonetics and phonology)". I agree 100% with the main content of your edit description, but I have to ask -- "create this arrangement"? What do you mean -- the division of the field into 3 parts (structure/grammar/other)? I have to say I'm the slightest bit uncomfortable with that division myself (from my perspective, it gives "the study of meaning" too much weight), but I was just trying to copy from what was already in the article lede. If you are uncomfortable too, is this something we should bring up on the talk page? Some sort of nice overview of the field is needed nevertheless, but there may be a better way to contextualize content that is still easily readable.

Harvard Girl

Hey Rjanag. I see that you are a frequent editor of the Harvard Girl article and you've reverted any attempts to add clarification to the scholarships awarded being need-based as opposed to merit-based. I personally don't care that much about it, and was just trying to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the situation while adding very little text. In fact, only two additional words are required to make this fact clear so there would be no misunderstanding from the reader's viewpoint. Since it's clear another user agrees with this clarification being a helpful addition to the article, I was just wondering what your reasoning was behind removing it. Do you think it's superfluous? Or is there another reason?

In my mind, it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all that she received a scholarship - that is essentially just revealing that her family falls under a certain income level. But if it must be mentioned, as it's currently written, it's very ambiguous to the reader as to why the scholarship was awarded. To a typical reader, it definitely sounds like it's merit-based due to the current wording. So, I thought simply adding the word "need-based" to an article that is over 1,000 words if it provides the reader with a truer picture of the facts would make sense. Or simply eliminating those two phrases from the article would also be a suitable alternative in my mind. Getting into Harvard is certainly a great accomplishment and extremely difficult. Adding ambiguous text/accomplishments to make it sound even more impressive seems unnecessary. Providing wikipedia readers with a clearer picture of the situation by adding two words seems like a good idea in my mind, but you must feel differently. You said to check out Be namo's talk page, but all I saw was that the two of you were in a revert war. I didn't see an actual discussion of the edit. I was just wondering your rationale as to why it would make the article worse based on wikipedia guidelines to include that clarification (or get rid of the mention of scholarship all together). Take it easy. Cheers! -Bluedog423^Talk 06:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The last editor was changing the text for a different reason than you were, so it's not clear that he "agrees"; that editor was trying to argue that the text was inaccurate because Harvard doesn't offer scholarships (see the edit summaries on the first page of the edit history), which is false, and which is why I reverted him. I now see that your edit was about clarity rather than accuracy, so I may have been a little quick on the trigger. As for whether the information is useful in the article, I tend to agree with you that it's not super-helpful to the reader and can be removed from the article without any real harm done, so feel free to go ahead and remove it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays

ranking

A reliable ranking is the priority info to indroduce a college's reputation instead telling people bunch of awards issued by numerous differnt parties. I think most American students need this info before they make their decision. This article seems focus on advertising by mostly showing positive things and avaoiding negative things. According to Wikipedia's rule, doesnt matter if it's positve/negative, all facts about Kenyon College should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texaspublic (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

you guys are patient as hell...

... he just doesn't get it. Maybe his username shoulda been some kind of Omen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Image file format

Hi, I saw your message to APL and I am curious. What is the format of the files you want to convert to grey scale? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost all .jpg, a few .png. I have since done them all by hand (although it would still be nice to know how to do this, for future reference!). rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally I am doing the same thing with .jpg files, I convert them to .bmp and work at byte level. From 54: (36H:) the pixel colours are represented as triplets B, G, R. I read the triplets and convert them to Y, Cb, Cr using these coefficients. Then replace B, R, G with Y, Y, Y to get the grey scale picture. I did this as part of an effort to extract new detail from the Zapruder film. My first attempt to invert the 2-D point spreading gave an encouraging result but shows coloured grain when I sharpen B, R, G equally. I anticipate that sharpening Y alone will do better. The available scan of the film has 486 jpg images.. I have no experience with png's. (GIF's's are easy to change to grey scale at the palette). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't know much about that. In the past I have been able to convert large numbers of images using the Easy Image Converter, which has a simple command line interface (but unfortunately, the one thing it doesn't so is PNG to other formats, although it can convert other formats to PNG...which is why I still have a few PNGs here). I noticed that GIMP has a command line interface as well so I assumed there should be something simple, like a desaturate() function, that I could just paste into a batch file a lot of times and run the batch file on the folder...unfortunately, I never even managed to figured out how to run GIMP from the command line, and the documentation available doesn't seem very helpful. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In GIMP I manage to load a directory full of image files to be layers in a .gif animation, but I don't know the command language. If you have $30 this program does what you want. If you prefer to keep your $30 then look into the free ImageMagick. The free Easy Image Converter web page has an e-mail address so you could ask whether they have a .png possibility. Disclaimer: I haven't tried these programs! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found EXACTLY what will do your conversions. Download www.irfanview.com. It's a free image program that I use. Under File - Batch conversion is a dialog that is easy to set up. (Irfan also has a command language which is well documented but you won't need that.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophe template

I believe Template:`s/doc is backwards. The first sentence, "This template allows quick entry of an apostrophe and "s" after italicized titles", should be "unitalicized" instead of "italicized". The rest of the paragraph, which matches the first paragraph of Template:'s/doc instead of contrasting with it, should be similarly reversed. This would make it consistent with Template:'/doc, Template:`/doc, and H13. I almost fixed it myself but your name is on it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right; I've fixed it. I think whenever I made that template I probably just pasted over the documentation from {{'s}} without looking at it. I'm not sure why I put my signature on it...oops! (so ashamed of my younger Wikipedia self...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Leehom edit war

My intention is in no way nationalistic. What I want is to keep the facts neutral that's why I do think it's the best way to write down Asian American (because that's a widely known fact). About the ancestry part, I do not think that the source (a yahoo site of China which I assume is biased) can proof that Leehom is really from China. News can be manipulated all the time and just because a journalist claims certain things, it still could be wrong. In addition, I know Leehom's ancestry, passport etc. has been discussed since a long time, but I do find it totally silly to put ancestry in his biography because for all other major singers, it was never put on. That's why I would stick with Asian American (Sorry bout the edit war, I didn't know how to leave messages, but I do hope you consider the neutrality of the Chinese Yahoo news as a source.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.22.188 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for the current version was reached through extended discussions with multiple users; in particular see User talk:Rjanag/Archive7#Leehom Wang's Nationality and Talk:Leehom Wang#Nationality and Taiwanese/Chinese politics. Wikipedia operates on consensus, so if you disagree with this wording you should start a new discussion at the article's talk page. The reason we settled on the current wording is because it is factual (no one disputes that he's of Chinese descent or working in Taiwan) and doesn't make strong claims about his national identity like "Chinese American" and "Taiwanese American" do. As for ancestry and origin in the infobox, this is a standardized format that's used on over 500 articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

people using the wrong script

i believe arabic is the official script for the kazakh language in China, yet people use cyrillic in articles relating to kazakhs in China, cyrillic is only official in kazakhstan. Same problem on some mongols in china related articles where people are using cyrillic whereas mongolian script is the official script of that language in China, and probably used in writing official documents in the autonomous regions. And although salar does not have an official script, i believe more of it is written in arabic than in latin, and the latin script in some wikipedia articles was made up by some unknown guy, some sources i have say that the actual latin script in use in China is based off pinyin and not the one that is currently seen on the aritcles. Do you know kazakh or salar or have any way of knowing how to write them in arabic script?Дунгане (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

specific articles i am concerned about- Kazakh was written in cyrillic here yet arabic script is official for kazakh in china

i deleted latin alphabet on xunhua salar county article

on Qinghai, oirat mongolian is written in cyrillic and khalka mongol in latin alphabet. Salar is written in alphabet. Oirat and khalka in China use traditional mongol script as official, not latin or cyrillic and i doubt any mongols in qinghai know cyrillic for their language.

If you feel i was wrong in the removal i will not object but i feel they should be replaced with arabic and mongolian writing since they are the official ones in those regions.Дунгане (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

i have three sources which all say salar have used arabic script in the past for hundreds of years and in the present now, though its not official- Two sources say they have arabic script, and that a pinyin based latin script was developed for them, but latin is barely used. Neither arabic nor latin is official, but judging from sources arabic is more common and has historical precedent. the latin script used in the articles was most certainly not the one created in china based on pinyin, it looked like someone copied and pasted the Turkish alphabet or Azerbaijani alphabet and applied it to salar- . Therefore it is really unsourced.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know any Salar or Kazakh; if you're looking for sources, though, I imagine you can find some if you look for stuff by Arienne Dwyer, who does a lot of research on Salar and may have written about Kazakh in China as well. As far as I know, Kazakh in China, when written, still uses Cyrillic script, although I don't have a source for you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense...

...to redirect the "eventual archive" to your talk page and then link to the "eventual archive" whenever you are linking something. This way you can still enjoy the benefits of the orange bar? –xeno^talk 18:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is a good idea! And it might help avoid misunderstandings like this. When I have a free moment I'll take your advice and shuffle things around a bit. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency detector

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

New incident at Xinjiang

Take a look at the page and add your input on the talk page, please. Looks like we have someone who has been recently involved in tendentious editing. Thanks --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

YeaH, Rjanag, you know more about this topic. There's some edit war going on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK templates TfD

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Did you know.2FQueue.2Fdoingcredits

I don't know if these are used for anything, but I noticed the nominator had not notified you. 28bytes (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection to deleting English Phonetic Alphabet:

Hey Rjanag. This message is to object your poposal on deleting the article about English Phonetic Alphabet. I do apologize for not making it clear that English Phonetic Alphabet is applied and taught in worldwide. It was fielded in private school in South Korea during 2010 and is currently used to teach children at aboriginal reservation area in Northern Ontario. In addition, EPA is acknowledged by TESL (teachers of English as a second language) Ontario, the most creditable and recognized non-profitable teaching professional association in Ontario that providing support for teachers, students, and government bodies. Workshops were held in TESL Ontario 2010 fall conference to help the industry and the public learn about EPA. The lesson was webcasted and is available in the TESL Ontario Conference Webcast Archives. Usually TESL will publish lesson in conferences onto their website 4 months later. I expect it will come out in early February and it can greatly improve the notability of this wiki article. While waiting for this big reference, what I will do is to find other creditable citations from schools and institutions that are implimenting EPA. If you have any further comments please discuss with me. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamchacha (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tourette syndrome comment

I wonder if you might consider refactoring your comment, as I'd already responded to the new editor, and your response is a bit bighty. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I stand by my comment that an editor who wants to edit articles but can't write is not a particularly valuable contributor. But, given that this editor has apparently made other contributions that are more or less ok (see, for example, this), I don't quite know what is up here (maybe there are multiple people using this account, maybe he's editing drunk right now, who knows). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw your recent contributions at DYK and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence, I was just looking at that page several hours before your message and thinking about applying. I think I will probably do it; still need to think it over a bit more. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you do! If you have any questions, just ask.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The deed is done! rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This should be an easy one to evaluate; I expect we'll get back to you quickly.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

About English Phonetic Alphabet

Hi my name is Judy Thompson and I am an ESL teacher in Canada. I really appreciate the effort you put into your response and I would like to reply to your comments.

First of all you are good. You are absolutely right about some things - the Wikipedia entry was created by a Chinese co-op student and there are some basic errors Asia /Ay Zhu/for starters and pure was transcribed /pyUwr/ - sorry about that and thank you.

While the Chinese student is unfamiliar with IPA and phonetics I taught IPA for many years and am very familiar with phonetics. You and I are coming from completely different places. I taught IPA to advanced English students who had been practicing their mistakes for many, many years before their overall English competency was at a level (Canadian Bench Mark 6) where they were eligible to enrol in pronunciation classes. By then there was a tremendous amount of fossilization that had to be unlearned and unlearning requires far more effort than learning properly in the first place. The English Phonetic Alphabet was developed in response to the needs of immigrants to learn to speak English quickly and effectively and is in many respects the antithesis of IPA.

There are 1.5 billion people using English as a learned language in the world today and an estimated less than 1% of them can use the IPA efficiently. EPA is for the rest of these learners and they love it.

They love it for two reasons. It makes sense and they don’t have to be a linguist to use it. We really are coming from completely different places, IPA is high technical and EPA is purely practical.

The pitfalls with IPA are irreconcilable. It isn’t logical for example /i:/ or /iy/ doesn’t logically represent an ‘e’ sound to anyone but the French. /j/ logically is the first sound of jump and jam not yellow. Many of the IPA symbols just don’t make sense and the myriad of Greek characters are alienating. IPA is not a viable tool for the vast majority of English language learners.

Let’s address the rest of your comments in this light and examine the English Phonetic Alphabet on its own merit.

Schwa is a very important part of spoken English. After a functional phonetic alphabet and stressed syllables it is the third most important thing students have to learn. As a tiny version of /u/ as in mustard, that symbol suffices to start. Avoiding two syllable words for rank beginners might be an easy solution.

EPA teachers avoid all linguistic jargon. Phonemic alphabet, glottal stop, voiced dental fricative etc are wonderful clarifying tools for linguists but they are the mortal enemies of the EPA target users

Bold is not the way stressed syllables are distinguished in handwriting – just making them bigger is simple and effective with an ordinary pen. You make a good point about the capitals and if we change the consonants that will also eliminate the need for underlining anything! SH as in /wiSh/, CH as in /wiCh/, keeping TH for θ and using Th for ð, Ng and Zh completes the set - an definite improvement As provincial as it sounds, air in and air out explain the phenomenon so simply for learners they can immediately create both those sounds and the purpose is served.

Changing the font size for capitals is a nuisance especially writing a text book, but it is worth the effort and you get really fast at it. In a word document written in font size 12, reducing the caps to a 10 still leaves them larger than their lowercase counterparts and easily recognizable as caps. I could be wrong but I don’t think there is that flexibility in Wikipedia. Caps and font functions are part of all computers and not a big deal to incorporate in Word for classroom use.

Conversely IPA uses many symbols that are difficult to find and use. And ʃ is constantly mistaken for s in handwriting. I seriously doubt anyone looks at /eI ʒә/ and thinks Asia.

With some clarification perhaps now you can see why this alphabet has been so warmly embraced by the ESL community. It is catching on like wildfire. EPA is currently being used in hundreds of schools in 16 countries around the world. There are new editions and new textbook being printed this spring and the changes you initiated will be part of the product. Again, thank you very much for your educated attention to this vital language tool.

As for the dictionary – dictionaries reflect language they don’t create it. With a viable replacement for the archaic IPA all current dictionaries are obsolete and we can look for them to be replaced in the next decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamchacha (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Thompson,

Thank you for your reply. I was looking forward to having a frank discussion about the issues I raised, but unfortunately I feel that your message above is more focused on supplying talking points to promote the EPA—understandable, since you're posting in a public forum. If you would like to continue the discussion privately you may e-mail me by enabling e-mail in your Preferences page and then returning to my page and clicking the "e-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left-hand side of the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking icons

Thanks for catching that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GOW

Thanks for being the voice of reason. I may need help on another article as well List of God of War characters. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be all OK, and things have settled down. Thanks again. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Or not. There may be a blind reversion coming by another user, but have placed reasons on Talk Page for changes - . Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

sorta-kinda mentoring for Public Policy Project

Hello, Rjanag. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Boonefrog (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador

Hi Rjanag, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind being a Wikipedia mentor for me. I saw you on the Online Ambassadors list for the Public Policy Initiative but interestingly enough I had just seen your name under the edits history for my alma mater, Kenyon College. It looks like you have a lot of Wikipedia wisdom to share as well! Thanks! Lmissik (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to help. Just drop me a message to let me know what your assignment is and what sort of editing you plan on doing, and then I will see what I can do! Judging by your edits so far, it looks like you're already quite familiar with the editing basics, so we won't need to spend a lot of time on the less exciting things like learning formatting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I am about to start listing possible sources and a basic outline for my group's wikipedia article on my sandbox. If you look at it and have any suggestions, let us know! I think the title of the article with be along the lines of "United States solid waste policy." The professor clarified some aspects of the project to us in class just yesterday, so we had to revise a few of our ideas. Thanks for your help! Lmissik (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for your suggestions - my group is incorporating them into our article. Right now we are working on the 3-4 paragraph article summary in my sandbox, so if you want to check on it as we are working and give us suggestions that would be great. We also had a question about citing sources in the article. If we have several sentences with information from one particular source, how do we deal with that? Do we have the same citation link at the end of each sentence, or just one at the end of the relevant sentences? We just aren't sure what the Wikipedia standard is. Thank you! Lmissik (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the citing advice! I wanted to let you know that we started more neatly editing our work here, and then moved it to the actual page - Solid waste policy in the United States. I suppose that's the best place to look now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmissik (talk • contribs) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl#Chinese New Left POV pushing , and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang ^talk 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action on anyone unless someone first supplies clear evidence of POV-pushing. The only place I have encountered this user before is on Mao: The Unknown Story, where some of his edits were reverted but other editors considered them good faith. You yourself have been disruptive at that article and its talk page.

So if you want something done, explain what makes this user's edits POV, and provide diffs.

Also, do not canvass. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have begun to collect "evidence" of Midnightblueowl's POV pushing:User:Arilang1234/Draft/POV pushing by Midnightblueowl, please have a look and point out any error if there is one. And his response:Talk:Cultural Revolution#Chinese New Left is just not convincing enough.

Arilang ^talk 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

links

Well, I figured since the RPG Classics site was linked ont he page, it would be of no problem to have my website linked to it. Although, not yet, My site will contain all the information to the game I can possibly do. RPG Classics is just another fan site created by one person, and actually has somewhat less information than my site does (excluding the health based information of the bosses and such). If I have to have my fan-site removed from the links, then I do not see it fair as the RPG Classics fan-site isn't being removed. In what way would I have to change my site to "follow" the guidelines? I am not using it strictly as advertising for money purposes or any of that, but a way for the Legaia (Page for the game I editteD) community to get together considering it's really small these days. If a person can use the site to view any kind of information that can be of help to them in the game, along with going to the forums to communicate with other people about the game, I think it would bring a community back to the game if you see what I am saying. 75.97.14.223 (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines on external linking have more information about what types of likes are and are not considered appropriate for Wikipedia articles. As for the RPG Classics link, for what it's worth, we have some essays (not official policies) called "other stuff exists" and "don't add sewage to the already polluted pond", which basically say that just because there is something wrong elsewhere in an article (or elsewhere in the project) doesn't mean we should continue adding other things like that. Anyway, I agree with you that the RPG Classics site appears to be just another fansite and s hould probably be removed; if you want to go ahead and remove it I would not object.

As for trying to get the community together, that is a noble goal, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a vehicle for community-building (see What Wikipedia is not). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for spotting and reverting the vandalism on my userpage, I really appreciate it! ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 09:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Schwede66's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! —Entropy (T/C) 18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile! Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks. New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students. Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group. Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today! Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag of East Turkistan

This came in today. I left a note on Talk:Flag of East Turkistan. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK discussion of Jeanne Galzy

It seems to be stuck now. Since you were the one who pulled it from the queue, and from your last comment you seem to be ok with it now, could you check off on it? LadyofShalott 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since I am involved I would not feel comfortable approving and selecting the hook (since it would basically amount to me rejecting the previous hook, insisting on a new one, and then promoting the very hook I insisted on). You could consider leaving a message at WT:DYK asking for another reviewer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - thank you for the reply. I'll post a note where you have suggested. LadyofShalott 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnny come lately here: I've asked BushRanger to move it along to one of the prep areas, since there is an agreed-upon hook. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Sweet Escape

I wasn't edit warring per se, I was just warning him that he can't just go around messing with articles' styles without an explanation whatsoever. For the record, that wasn't the only page he edited inaccurately or the first time he had been warned. I'll back down for now, but I will revert his edits eventually. SnapSnap 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were edit warring: . It doesn't matter if he was right or not (for what it's worth, I looked over his edits at other pages and some were appropriate and some not; he has since been warned about making these changes without discussing); edit warring is not appropriate either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia editing and am exploring it in my trade policy class. I figured you would be a good mentor because you edit articles on China and I used to live and work there. Emptybride (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Moves of Jilu Mandarin, etc

Please go to that page's talk to give your input, before enough users who are not knowledgeable enough chime in. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on Uyghur people

Hey Rjanag! If you have time, please look into the edit war going on in Uyghur people, which stirred up due to one user questioning the significance of Uyghurs in Turkey. Also, If you have additional time, there's also a debate going on in Talk:Hindi-Urdu about transliteration/transcription. Thanks, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:SecularHumanist1789

Hi again Rjanag, this user has been removing legitimate comments on his talk page (which is perfectly fine), but putting "vandalism" as the edit summary, even after I asked them not to do so. Is there a policy against this, and if so, what should be done? Thanks, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 09:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's rude, but there's not really anything that can be done about it. Anyway, I've given the user a final warning regarding edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Uyghur people

Alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

God of War

Greetings. Actually, if you take a close look I have been trying to improve the articles and compensate for what are largely questionable edits on account of poor spelling, grammar and other issues. These articles attract their fair share of fans who at times don't see that where possible things neeed to be kept at encyclopedia standard. As tiring as it is, I will continue to persevere. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be civil to you. The comment Again, I am not interested isn't really necessary or expected of administrators. I've dealt with other admin folk on Wikipedia who have been good enough to discuss the issues and not throw up brick walls. Perhaps I should contact one of them to help mediate. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you missed the point. I'm not talking about edit warring. I was referring to your own rather blunt commentary (recent proof in the Edit Summaries - again: stop edit warring and complaints completely immaterial. Both are very brusque and miss the fact that I was making an observation). On editing in general, something that also needs to be addressed are scenarios whereby somewhat inexperienced editors stick to their guns, even though there has been compromise and repeated attempts to explain the flaws in their logic. It has to go through Request for Comment etc etc and creates more work before anything can get done. But, no matter. I will discuss where possible and if there are additional issues contact another editor I know who is experienced, affable and above all patient. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

Hi there, just noticed that you reverted my edit while I was putting the finishing touches to it ;)

As for the rationale you mention, I have modeled the introduction mostly on Japan, Norway, Italy, Germany and Canada. It contains elements from each country that relates to South Korea.

I looked at previous edits and thought there were some important facts about South Korea that were missing from the main intro so decided to give it a try myself.

I have tried to refrain from POV as much as possible and edit the intro with sourced facts but let me know if there are some elements that you think are leaning that way.

In the meantime, I will apply some of the finishing changes :) Pocketchef (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, since you made a large number of changes without using edit summaries, it's difficult to tell what exactly you did; particularly, since you moved large chunks around without saying so, it's also difficult to tell from the diff (editing comparison) what new text you added or how you changed the existing text.

Secondly, you've added several unnecessary superlatives ("tallest building in Asia", "first Asian country to host the G20") and images without any explanation of why they're important. Numerous discussions at the talk page have ended in a consensus that we should avoid "boasting" in the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. Now, I think reverting the whole edit just because it's difficult to compare the different versions is not constructive. I do agree that it's a great idea to put a rationale at the end of each edit, which I will do so from now on. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm still getting used to the rules here ;) We can compare the current version with the version before I edited to figure out the difference, but I will address the two you mentioned. Firstly, you seem to be referring to the 63 Building that was built in 1985 as the tallest in Asia. The reason why this is significant is that it represents South Korea's economic growth at its peak. It's similar to the skyscraper boom going on in China at the moment. Now I'm not a big fan of superlatives, however, the 63 Building (as its floor count name suggests) was built for the purpose of tall height for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. It is also the centerpiece skyscraper in Seoul's financial district, and as such, I regard it is necessary to mention this superlative. Secondly, you seem to be referring to the G-20 Seoul Summit. As for this one, I agree that it is leaning more on the unnecessary side. While it is significant that South Korea was the first non-Western country to host this major event, I think I understand your view in that it is not important in a Wikipedia article. I will apply those changes now. Let me know if you have more contributions to make. Thanks Pocketchef (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Moving_forward.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mono (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

This comment really does disturb me. If you're accusing me of CANVASS, that is very worrying to me. If you made an error, please retract ASAP. I would absolutely hate to be thought of as canvassing. Thanks for your time.  Chzz  ►  06:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied, on my talk as above.  Chzz  ►  07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

+again  Chzz  ►  07:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

slow edit-warring

I'm not really familiar myself, but is there a policy against slow edit-warring, that is, repeated revert edits spread out over a number of days, with no explanation nor engagement in discussion by an editor? Numerous editors have reverted User:2%peach's edits at List of cities in China (user also previously edited as an IP, 110.174.64.45), and the user has been warned. 3RR doesn't apply in this case, as it doesn't occur within 24-hours, so I'm not quite sure on what I should do that would be appropriate. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ben, my philosophy is, slow edit warring is still edit warring even if it doesn't technically violate 3RR. I'm just about to go out of town for a few days so I don't know if I'll have time to take a look at this, but I would suggest going ahead and trying WP:AN3 if the editor has been repeatedly reverting without discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 3, 21 March 2011 This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail. Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active. Education portal in progress - Wikimedia staff have started work on an outreach portal for information about teaching with and about Wikipedia. Please help develop it! Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.) Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee. Editing Friday returns - This Friday, join fellow ambassadors and others real-time collaboration on Wainwright Building.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sokka article

As an administrator can you restore the Sokka article's history per here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The article has return but not with the before history though. Sorry to bother you. Happy editing. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thaks. Appreciate it. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at 虞海's talk page.
Message added 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Me ne frego @ Uyghur people

He's "right" and has "proven" it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's finally solve this issue. According to your statement here, the image "has been subject of disputes over its use on other Wikipedias, including en-wiki". I want to know where exactly. I also want to remind you, that your claim that "Picture is not representative of what Uyghur people usually look like", which was later corrected, shows how much you actually know about Uyghurs.--Me ne frego (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

@Seb: Looks like the problem is solved. I thought something smelled fishy... rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A-ha. I notified the admins on commons as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ERPLAB

Hi, Rjanag. I'm pleased to have another set of eyes on this article. As you can see from the edit history, I've attempted to explain what the problem is with the material these editors keep re-adding to the article, but they seem in no mood to listen. I've now attempted a longer explanation on the article's talk page in the attempt to allay any confusion.

Candidly, though, I think all the edits to the article besides mine and yours are probably the work of a single editor, or a couple of editors working in tandem, whose purpose is to publicize the topic. I say this because User:Jcho91 created and then blanked a test article called Etfoo, Etfoo being the username of the other(?) principal contributor to the article: I'm guessing he was experimenting and forgot who he was logged-in as. User:Etfoo, the creator of the article, has a fairly straightforward conflict of interest.

I've so far avoided nominating the article for deletion in spite of the absence of sources needed to establish notability. I hesitate to nominate scientific topics because, unlike general-interest topics, whose notability is typically easily established or discounted with little more than a Google search, a science-related topic may be perfectly notable but information about it may not turn up in the usual places and may require access to more specialized resources. Nevertheless, as considerable time has elapsed without the addition of any sources to the article, if none are added after a decent interval I will likely send it to AfD. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; ERPLAB is definitely widely known and talked about within this community (in fact at my lab we're talking about adopting it for our analyses), although I don't know whether we will be able to find the kinds of sources that Wikipedia likes. I assume the editors in question are just some well-intentioned people from Luck's lab who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and purpose. I will try to leave them a message soon and explain things. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ERPLAB Wikipedia

Hi,

Thank you for your help with the wikipedia page ERPLAB. This is my first wikipedia page and apologize for any actions that are against wikipedia's guidelines. I am a part of the Luck Lab and was asked to create this page in order to give researchers a brief history of what our software is capable of. We also wanted to give some instructions on how to easily download the software (hence the links I tried uploading).

We also wanted to give thanks to members in our lab and researchers who have helped in the development of the software. However, under wikipedias guidelines, I have learned that this may not be possible. Is there any way that we can show our gratitude towards these members, possibly in a history section?

-jcho91 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcho91 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic signs

Please see the reference desk post, I've replied to your comment there. --Goqer (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Hyacinth#Wikipedia:Use-mention distinction

A link to a word is a mention (even if most are created around uses). Can you find any guidelines that deal with the use-mention distinction in articles? Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

kindly fyi

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGFM#Gesellschaftliche_Positionierung

nobody takes them seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.211.247 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind weighing in?

Rjanag, I've seen you at LGBT-related articles, and want to know if you wouldn't mind weighing in on this: Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue. I posted a message about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, but I hardly get any help from there or other WikiProjects these days. So part of my approach these days is to go to relevant editors individually and hope they weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to two votes

Dear Rjanag, I have noticed that you have spent some time helping with the article "2011 Chinese protests". Therefore I would like to inform you about two votes going on:

• "Vote for renaming article to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution"" at the bottom of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Chinese_protests

• AfD for the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China's_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents#China.27s_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents

Thank you very much for your valued opinion! Best, Waikiki lwt (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yours is the thirteenth such post on talk pages. This SPA has been engaged in tendentious editing and edit warring at the 2011 Chinese protests for several days. Do you know if anything can be done about it? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit (Page) Notice Request

Could you please create a page notice at Talk:People's Republic of China and Talk:China? I can't put up with the incessant inquiries into "why doesn't China redirect to PRC?", and this issue really needs to be discussed at WT:NC-ZH, and not on those two talk pages. Something like "Any threads discussing a possible re-direct of China to the PRC will be promptly removed" should suffice. Thanks --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...

好久不見--俠刀行 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 4, 22 April 2011 This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Voting begins for steering committee - The voting phase for the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee election started this week, and will continue through 27 April. Seeking more Regional Ambassadors in the US - We are still looking for Regional Ambassadors for the United States! The deadline has been extended to Friday, April 29th. India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune. Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case. Ambassador program at Wikimania - We're planning a set of Wikipedia Ambassador Program presentations for Wikimania 2011, in Haifa this August. Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Message at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots

there is some concern about dead refs and such, questioning the FA-status of the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Help - Solid Waste policy team

Hello

We see that Solid Waste is currently directed to Municipal Solid Waste which is not correct if you talk about solid waste. When we created the Solid waste policy in the United States page, we are elaborating the Solid Waste section in every detail. So can you please forward the solid waste to this "about the solid waste" heading in this article? Also please let us know if you have any alternative suggestion. --Brijesh Krishnan 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Brijeshkrishnan (talk)

It would probably be better to just create a new article on solid waste in general (by clicking here) rather than redirecting to your article, which (according to its title) is about policies regarding solid waste in the United States in particular. The new article does not have to be long or detailed, it could just be a stub or brief definition; technically, it could even be more or less copy-pasted from Solid waste policy in the United States#About solid waste if you are in a hurry, although you should always do some minor copyediting and revisions to make sure it still works as a stand-alone article (with the context from the other article removed). rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. When I was trying to edit the redirecting link of solid waste - it said the topic is administrator protected. Will it be the same if I go ahead creating the new page as per your suggestion? --Brijesh Krishnan 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Brijeshkrishnan (talk)

I don't believe so. As far as I can tell neither Solid Waste nor Solid waste is protected. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We will try and get back to you if need need any advise. --Brijesh Krishnan 05:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Brijeshkrishnan (talk)

Proposed deletion of Shao bing

The article Shao bing has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. noq (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research

Hi Rjanag/Archive9,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Chinese word for "crisis"

Please explain on the talk page exactly what you disagree with in my edits and revert only that if you must, rather than a wholesale rollback. The language of the article is highly judgmental, assumes the validity of Mair's arguments as uncontroversial facts, misuses the technical term folk etymology, and attributes POV's to "some linguists" which are blog posts by a colleague of Mair who cites Mair as his source. The only possible thing I can imagine you taking exception to is the quote of Long Zhangdao from a commercial website - if so that can be selectively addressed. I am going to restore my edits and would appreciate if you would be precise in any further reversions. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My post is on the talk page. Sorry about the delay, I was running into Wikimedia errors. Anyway, let's please adhere to WP:BRD and work out a consensus on the talk page rather than starting to edit war. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I saw you and answered there. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt

Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

So I appreciate your attempts to cool down the neverending Joseon Dynasty edit war, but your 3RR warning to me seems a little excessive: I reverted the page precisely twice, with each revert more than 24 hours apart, and both reverts simply restored well-referenced content that was deleted by new users with no explanation -- which is vandalism in my book and, I presume, yours as well. I intend to continue both reverting unhelpful deletions and my rather fruitless attempts to engage the Korean nationalists on Talk:Joseon Dynasty, although they've so far been rather impervious to reasoning, not least because many of them don't actually speak English... Jpatokal (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is still edit warring regardless of how many reverts you have made; please click that link and familiarize yourself with our actual edit warring policy, not just 3RR. This is not the first time I have warned editors at this article about edit warring. I have no intention of taking sides; while I do agree that many of the deletions were unexplained and look like repeats of nationalistic edit warring that has been done in the past, I also think that all sides in this dispute need to be keeping things to the talk page. If you guys keep edit warring like this I will not be averse to protecting the page again, this time for a much longer period. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Young whippersnapper, I've been on Wikipedia twice as long as you, so rest assured, I am intimately familiar with the edit warring policy. (Or take a look at my block log: 8 years, 13,000+ edits, and precisely zero blocks.)

Thing is, if somebody adds something controversial or dubious or oddly worded, it's possible to work out a compromise: reword the addition, question its validity, move it elsewhere in the article, etc. But what do you do when somebody removes referenced content with no justification? The only sensible option is to restore it until they explain themselves, and I will continue to do so -- but if you have better concrete suggestions for how to deal with this, I'm all ears. (Here, for your reference, is what I was reverting, and here is the track record of [most probably] the sock puppet in question; note total lack of coherent edit summaries or Talk page contributions.) Jpatokal (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think my behavior was reasonable, or can you propose an alternative course of action? Jpatokal (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the Joseon talk page war as an uninvolved editor and am increasingly discouraged that any consensus will be possible. Several nationalist POV warriors will never be able to see Joseon in a broader historical framework that includes a realistic view of the Imperial tributary trade system, Korean-Qing dynasty relations, nor comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. We may need to protect Joseon dynasty for weeks or months more until the conflict dies down. NickDupree (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

we need neutral third party help in this ANI dispute

you've dealt with both me and Arilang1234 before

Arilang1234 having a go at his POV pushing on the boxer rebellion article, claiming the content in the article is from "chinese high school text book", when not a single chinese or communist source was used in the article.

look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Lead_section

report I made on his edits- he tries to link the black panthers, marxists, and vietnam war to anti imperialism on the boxer rebellion= User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Report ANI

marxists, black panthers and vietnam protestors have something to do with anti imperialism in the boxer rebellion according to arilang

since benlisquare mentioned australia also includes anti imperialism in its textbooks, arilang1234 goes on to claim it must be because australia is a "socialist" country

Now he thinks dropping off conspiracy theories about high school text books, australia, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam on the boxer rebellion article and filing an ANI report after he was criticized for doing so is acceptable

Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling

After his trolling on the Boxer rebellion talk page, Arilang1234 proceeded to file this ANI report complaining about me after I criticized him for his attempt at linking marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war to the Boxer rebels...ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And he titled the ANI thread "racist", and proceeded to provide not one single piece of evidence that I said anything racist at all. One also has to wonder what the "cold war" he inserted into the title has to do with anything other than to grab attention.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol and kindly give some advice on how to improve it? Arilang ^talk 06:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have created a synopsis section on Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol, please have a look and give some advice. Arilang ^talk 03:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, please have a look:1900 National Upheaval and kindly suggest ways to improve the article, thanks. Arilang ^talk 08:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Uyghur script help

Hello Rjanag. Are you able to read the Uyghur script within the following images:(image1, image2) and type it into plain Unicode text, so that it can be included in the table at Resident Identity Card#Identity cards in ethnic minority areas? Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The tiny text is a bit unclear, but between that and the Chinese translations I think I got it:

First image, first line of text is تارقاتقان ئورگان (ULY tarqatqan organi). Second line is كۈقكە ئىگە ئۈددىتى (ULY küqke ige üdditi). Both are the same in meaning as the Chinese text below them.

Second image, text above 民族 is مىللىتى (milliti). The words in the next line, from left to right, are توغۇلغان (toghulghan), يىل (yil), ئاي (ay), and كۈن (kün). Next line down should be ئادرېسى (adrësi); text is a bit unclear but that's what 住地 ought to be. Last line is كىملىك نومۇرى (kimlik nomuri). All these are just direct translations of the Chinese text below them.

Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks alot for that. I was also able to find "ethnicity" from this dictionary entry as well, but the site is quite strange to navigate. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The best online dictionary I've found so far for Uyghur is http://dict.yulghun.com/ , although it seems to go down from time to time, and there is a quota of words you can look up per 24 hours. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese characters

Hi Rjanag, long time no talk. I just remembered you were a Chinese speaker and was wondering if you think that individual Chinese characters would warrant Wikipedia articles. Some of them obviously have rich cultural tradition and I believe the contents would grow beyond mere definitions. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a very small number might, but the vast majority don't. I don't know if you can read French, but on fr-wiki they have stubs on a whole lot of Chinese characters and around two years back I tried AfDing the lot of them, ultimately there was no consensus to delete all of them although I did get a few individual ones deleted. Although, to be fair, their articles really were just definitions (they were all like "X is a Chinese character that means Y, is Unicode value is Z"); if you were able to pull together something more encyclopedic it might be a different story. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree only a very small number of them would, perhaps a handful. By the way I've noticed that we already have articles on some of them in Category:Chinese characters, and it seems a couple of them might need to be sent to AfD. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I agree; based on my brief glance, I think Jiong, 腹, and 阝 should all be deleted. Fu character looks ok to me because of its cultural significance, and 了 seems borderline (although I must confess I'm a bit biased, as I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this character; nevertheless, I think this character is really of theoretical/academic interest but not encyclopedic interest). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, I'd like to ask another question. I just found Thomas Watters' Essays on the Chinese language (1889) and am thoroughly enjoying it! I wonder if you could recommend another good in-depth book written in English on Chinese language? I am in fact a native Korean speaker—Here students are required to learn Chinese script as many of the Korean classics are written in it—and have some basic knowledge of Japanese too. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm...off the top of my head, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy by John DeFrancis is one of the classics. I also really like Jerome Packard's The Morphology of Chinese—it's a more theoretical, academic treatment, but still a pretty interesting read I think. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oi!

Easy there with the templates, cowboy -- I have not been involved in the can-Joseon-be-tagged-as-WP:CHINA edit war, at all. Here are the only edits I've made to the page in the last week: Please remove your edit from my talk page and apologize. Jpatokal (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jpatokal (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Historiographer and Gaming the system

As you know, the edit war on Talk:Joseon Dynasty involves multiple users, none of whom have crossed 3rr on their own. Following your example remedy for the earlier edit war on Joseon Dynasty, I have thus filed a request for page protection. However, although many users acted wrongly in this dispute, the conduct of Historiographer (talk · contribs) is uniquely egregious and sanctionable. Historiographer has a history of edit warring at Joseon Dynasty: on 28 April 2011, he was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on Joseon Dynasty, with the blocking admin noting that "Historiographer is a repeat offender with several prior 24 hr blocks for edit warring" and that "Korea-related conflicts of this sort are a perennial hotspot and should be treated as a zero-tolerance area when it comes to edit warring". In response to this edit war, you protected the article on 4 May. But after the protection expired, an edit war involving Historiographer flared up again, and in this edit on 22 May, you warned five named users—Baptisan4, Jpatokal, Historiographer, Melonbarmonster2, and Oda Mari—that "Any edit warring on this issue after the page protection ends will be blockable".

At the beginning of the new edit war on Talk:Joseon Dynasty, Historiographer joined the fighting in earnest (5 June), despite your first warning after his block directed explicitly at him about edit warring on that page. He then became one of the three users (including Jpatokal and myself) who received user talk page warnings (5 June) from you against edit warring. When you and I discussed the new template you used for those warnings, {{uw-ew}}, you said that "WP:3RR clearly states that editors can be blocked without breaching 3RR." After those user talk warnings, edit-warring on Talk:Joseon Dynasty continued, but Jpatokal and I, as already-warned or wrongly-warned editors, refrained from making any more reverts. Yet Historiographer continued (6 June) to make his second hostile revert just on the talk page, despite two warnings directed specifically at him within the past two weeks, and a block for warring on the main article within the last two months. Trying to assume good faith, I pointed out on that article's talk page how defiant Historiographer's behavior looked, and suggested that if he didn't want to appear to be gaming the system, he should revert himself. Although he was active on the talk page just seven minutes before I made my plea, he has yet to respond to it or to otherwise show remorse. Historiographer (talk · contribs) has gotten as brazenly close to breaking Wikipedia's edit warring rules as you can get without breaking 3RR. So my question is, what is the correct venue to request a stop to his sustained disruptive behavior? I would have brought this to the edit warring noticeboard, but the format seems to be oriented towards recent violations of 3rr, and this case involves a lot of history where only you and Future Perfect at Sunrise as admins have the requisite familiarity. Quigley (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested Future Perfect at Sunrise's assistance with this case. Quigley (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I got distracted and forgot to respond to your last message. I meant to say that I agree Historiographer's reverts were probably blockable, and I probably dropped the ball when I gave him a warning rather than a block; I was giving everyone involved a warning as a knee-jerk reaction, and I forgot about Historiographer's existing block history. By now, though, I think a block would just be punitive, unless he does it again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At the time I also felt that the case was a bit unclear because Historiographer was reverting a revert that was already somewhat questionable (NotYourBroom's restoration of the tag that was under dispute, albeit a very silly dispute), so I'm not sure it would have been appropriate to punish that user and none of the others. Some might believe the user was somewhat justified in doing that to restore the status quo during a dispute (although his edit summary suggests that that isn't the reason he had in mind). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did do it again, if by that you mean revert (03:52, 6 June 2011) after you gave him the warning (02:35, 5 June 2011). Notyourbroom was warned not even once about this although Historiographer was warned multiple times, so that's why I think Historiographer's behavior is different. A more general question I want to ask, then, is: when can editors can be blocked without breaching 3RR? Were there any specific examples that you were thinking of when you made that comment? Quigley (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

autoconfirmed talkpage protection

Do you have the authority to protect my talk page (autoconfirmed users only) for 24 hours? 24 hours should be long enough. There is an IP edit warring on my page, and since I have email notifications turned on, it's getting really annoying. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, never mind, looks like its over. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

re your edit

Probably right. I was just trying to find something to link to Ershidin Israil...... I didn't want my new article to be an orphan... NickCT (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Actually I figured it was probably borderline, so we can still discuss it more at the talk page if you like.

Regarding your new article, though, to me it looks like it might be bordering on WP:BLP1E; has anyone else expressed concerns? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to discuss it further. The WP:UNDUE rationale is reasonable. I'll look for other pages to link.

Re WP:BLP1E - That's probably a valid concern. I think however that there is some notable information within Ershidin Israil, and I'm not sure that information would be better suited under some other article..... Perhaps rename the article to Extradition of Ershidin Israil to avoid WP:BLP1E concern? That seems like a somewhat untidy fix. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass tagging discussion

I've left a comment here, maybe you're interested in my 2 cents. --213.168.111.208 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy ( _Xeworlebi ^(talk)) is driving me crazy with tags on Buffy episodes. He seems to have a big bug about it. I agree with you that if individual episode pages have been the convention, then they shouldn't have to meet some sort of random "notability" quotient, but I've given up on arguing with him (see Talk:Anne (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). It might help if he could define "notability" to his satisfaction, since apparently it is he we have to satisfy--WP policy doesn't seem to be enough for him. He's also insisting on references on plot summaries, which according to WP plot guidelines, do not require them. Is it worth taking this to a higher authority? The guy has worn me out. I, too, used the phrase "drive-by tagging" as I see he doesn't work on any of the things he tags, just stops by to annoy the rest of us.--TEHodson 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at the last couple hundred of the guy's edits, most are taggings and reversion of other people's work. I'm thinking he's living out an "I never got to grade everyone else's papers" fantasy. I doubt he'll stop arguing or change his mind. Personally, I prefer a life of peaceful co-existence, but others enjoy stirring the pot.--TEHodson 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks; we can have a discussion about the issues without attacking the other editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Xeworlebi has about the worst civility:incompetence-ratio I've come across. He manages to get under people's skin.

Consider e.g. that he mass-tags those episodes because he knows full well that probably not one of them would be deleted at AfD. So he mass-tags them -- for what exactly? To annoy people. Incidentally, he appears to perceive just about any communication directed at him as attempts at annoying him. Not to mention that he doesn't forgive (at least he was being honest there).

Seriously, it's not just this issue. Xeworlebi is belligerent even in completely non-controversial cases where he simply happens to be barely informed about e.g. the MoS. It's about time to start a serious discussion about his overall behavior. --213.196.211.193 (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it especially irritating that on his Talk page he "reverts" comments from people who disagree with him and then insults them. It's cowardly and while it's not forbidden to do that, WP makes it very clear that the preferred method is to deal with disagreements and archive one's Talk page, not delete comments on it. Anyone who merely reverts and tags is acting not as an editor, but as a traffic officer. It's rude and destructive behavior. It's stuff like this that drives the sanest editors away, leaving only the quarrelsome ones behind.--TEHodson 09:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right. I've long found that removing comments from one's user talk page can be an aggressive gesture. In Xeworlebi's case, even without his angry edit summaries, it is clear that he frequently removes other people's comments in an angry and aggressive way. It's clearly uncivil in spirit regardless of the letter of WP:TPG. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (just to make sure: I'm the same IP from above, my ISP assigns me wildly varying addresses)

I just posted this on his talk page, and copied it here: "I have requested editing dispute assistance, as your random mass "notability" tagging seems impossible to resolve. You have not once described what you would consider acceptable noteworthiness (or whatever the word should be), nor have you explained how you are suddenly the gatekeeper for notability on the many episode pages you've tagged. You haven't shown us an example by, say, editing one of the pages yourself to make it notable by your standards so we can follow suit and then remove the tags without further trouble. Nor have you accepted the contention that if all the page consists of is plot, there is no need to demand references, as the episode is its own reference, even though that is acceptable WP policy. Such a page should have a "plot only" tag, but it's absurd to demand references for a page that has, as yet, nothing to reference. You can find my request here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests" --TEHodson 10:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Xeworlebi's behavior

So you don't see any problem with Xeworlebi's behavior, nor with the fact that he is as utterly incompetent as he is unwilling to listen to other editors' input? Ok then, enjoy his company. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Uyghur people

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk · contribs) is at it again; apart from the content which I cannot really evaluate, the section-header "Creation of the Uyghur Nationalist movement by the Soviet Russian Communists" seems "ranty" to me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

see response- I did not mention anywhere in my edit about Russians creating "Uyghur Identity". i said that they created the modern ethnic nationality (which is true since the first time Uyghurs were counted as a nationality was by the 1926 soviet census)

Talk:Uyghur_people#.CE.94.CE.A5.CE.9D.CE.93.CE.91.CE.9D.CE.95.27s_recent_additions

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Automated Replies

This is a friendly notification to inform you that automated notices are submitted to reported users on the WP:AN/EW noticeboard by User:NekoBot periodically during reviews of the page content to save editors from having to post their own notices and directly link to the report in question. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot and User:NekoBot for more information. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re your small comment . . .

. . . at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#A different language?: Good comic strip—one I'd not seen before. I liked this one as well. Deor (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Drifter (person)

I don't suppose you'd mind replying to this? I can't put the article up for AFD now, as the page is still protected, and I'm pretty sure I can't do it once the protection expires, either, without an account. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Four Award articles

Why does Category:Good articles only include article space articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; I just noticed that Category:Four Award articles is hidden, which means it should be ok. Nevertheless, it would be better if you could find a way to get it onto the talk page (for instance, by making a talkpage template that can be added to the top of FOUR articles) rather than directly adding the category in the article, since having that category in the list of non-administrative categories clutters the list. (Note that categories like Category:Good articles are populated through templates that have been placed on the article by community consensus; they are not directly added in the category list at the bottom of the article.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It took GA years to get approval for their top-page template icon. Is this a topic that is appropriate for CFD or where could we get a wider set of responses from people who might know what the bigger picture policy reasons are why Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles are an article space category and Category:Wikipedia featured articles & Category:Wikipedia good articles are talk page space categories. I don't actually understand the difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you make an icon for article space; that's not necessary for a project this small and it would never get consensus. What I was suggesting was a small box or icon to go on the talk page or, better yet, talking to User:Gimmetrow about adding something in {{ArticleHistory}} (a single parameter like |dykdate= would probably do, just something to add a sentence like "this article has received a Four Award" and add the category). At the worst, the category could just be typed in at the top of the talk page, with the wikiproject banners.

As for why Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles are an article space category, I already mentioned the reason for that: they are filled up by the icons, which are in article space. As for why those categories exist at all, I don't know (if the icons and the {{ArticleHistory}} template are implemented correctly, those categories are redundant to one another). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this category is the proper parallel to the aformentioned article space categories except that it will be manually maintained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For the reasons I stated above, it is not ideal to have this category mixed in with "content" categories in the wikitext, if that can be avoided (which it can through any of the alternatives I described). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am soliciting opinions at Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award#Category:Four_Award_articles. Feel free to comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Spare Change News article

Hello. You removed a significant quote from the late historian Howard Zinn which I inserted in the Spare Change News article. Your comment was it was superfluous. You removed it / reverted it, without discussion. I think Howard Zinn's quote about Spare Change News specifically is instructive despite the material possible being covered on general descriptive principles in the article. I may put it back in the article. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, since we disagree on this it would be better to discuss the issue here or at the talkpage until we reach a consensus, and in the meantime leave the earlier version of the article up (without the quote). You are welcome to invite other editors to comment or ask for a WP:3O; as for me, I still think the quote doesn't really provide anything that isn't already apparent in the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position but still mostly disagree with its export. I think it's significant that Dr. Zinn said it in addition to its being in the article in different words. I've asked a third party to look at it and I will think about it some more with your points in mind. Perhaps there's a middle ground. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As the aforementioned third party, I took a look at the article, and the material in question. Regarding the placement of the Howard Zinn passage, that location seems out of place. The section is titled for mission statements, and the quote by Howard Zinn isn't really a mission statement in the normal sense of the term. At this point, I'm inclined to say leave the quote out, because (A) I can't figure out a really good place to put it, and (B) I don't want to start a quote farm. You might want to consider putting passage into Wikiquote? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, for your kind help. I'll sit on it or figure out a better place and blend if possible at all. I'm unsettled on it but appreciate all the points above. Thanks to Rjanag for pointing it out. I know there are articles where some significant figure is quoted or even something like "President Obama said the work of the organization is critical to the global recovery ..." despite its being already described in the same article sans Obama. Oh well. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SotC

re your revert: I believe if you use my CSE, you will be pleasantly surprised to discover that not only is there a RS for that claim, it is a RS already being used in the article.

Perhaps this will help your researching new claims in the future. --Gwern (contribs) 01:20 22 June 2011 (GMT)

I see. In any case, it would better to work this information in with attribution to other sources (either in some general paragraph about "themes", or in the paragraph where it was inserted just now but written more like "Some commentators have noted[1][2][3] parallels between this character and the biblical character of Nimrod, and pointed out that Dormin's name is Nimrod's spelled backwards). That way we're attributing to some other source so it doesn't look like OR by a Wikipedia editor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Linguistics

Hello Rjanag. You made this edit recently: . I agree. There are multiple issues that are needing to deal with. I will start a discussion section on the talkpage. Your input is welcome. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence on Chinese classifiers

"There is no one-to-one pairing between count-classifiers and nouns." I called this nonsensical for short. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had called it "trivially and non-informatively true and not saying what it intends to say". If there was a one-to-one pairing, there would as many different classifiers as there are nouns, which would be crazy. It's probably not what the person who wrote that meant. They meant that sometimes there are several classifiers for one word, not just one, so perhaps they should have said: "There is no one-to-many pairing, there is a many-to-many pairing." But that's excessively pseudo-mathematical. Anyway, the point is made sufficiently clearly in the text that follows, so I felt the sentence did not need to be improved, just removed.

And: why did you revert? WP:AGF, no? --Kai Carver 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your second question first: WP:BRD. Clearly you don't understand WP:AGF, if you think that making an edit in good faith means it can never be reverted.

As for your content-related argument, I see your point now and there is some logic to it. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that that paragraph needs a sort of "introduction" to the point it is making before it gets into the specific examples. (The "across dialects and across speakers" point is one example of where variability comes from, it's not the main point of the entire paragraph.) Thus, the sentence needs to be revised rather than removed. Something along the lines of "It is not the case that every noun is only used with a single classifier."

In any case, per WP:BRD linked above, please do not revert until we reach an agreement on the new wording here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions. I agree some kind of introductory phrase would be better than nothing. But nothing is better than the silly phrase you reinstated. However, I don't care to "achieve consensus" with you, so I'll let you do as you see fit. You're the one who has been doing the reverting here, and assuming each time that I would do the wrong thing. --Kai Carver (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Again you didn't read WP:BRD; the reason I reverted was because you didn't clearly explain the reason for your edit. There's nothing wrong with reverting once in such a case and then engaging in discussion.

Since you seem to agree that the rewording I suggested is acceptable, I will make that edit now. No response here is needed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with your change, but I think your manner of communicating is unfriendly. I did read the article you mentioned (how would you know whether I did or not?), and while I am no expert, I understood it to say that BRD is useful in case of a blockage and where other more normal methods have failed. This was not such a case. --Kai Carver (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Walk the Moon page

Hey, you just deleted the page Walk the Moon that I'm working on for not having any significance. I put the code on top that says I was working on the page. I totally understand your concern fro deleting it and I was working to make sure the page fit all of Wiki's guidelines. I did my research to write a band page, I'm not just doing this on a whim. Please let the page be complete before you decide whether to delete it or not. Thank you.

Kgcarlso91 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The page has already been created and deleted before, and as far as I can tell what you wrote this time was not very different from the version deleted in the past. (The version deleted before was just copy-pasted from Walk the Moon's website.) You didn't include any sources to indicate why the band is notable and how it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians and bands. (Please review all three of the pages I just linked to, which contain the guidelines most relevant for this article.) For what it's worth, I know a few members of this band personally, and I myself have considered adding an article (which is why I patrol that page), but last time I checked they did not meet the inclusion criteria.

If you don't have time to add sources as necessary right now, and would prefer to work on the article at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted, just write it at User:Kgcarlso91/Walk the Moon, and when you feel it's ready to be added to the main article space without being deleted use the "move" tab at the top of that page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the in-depth explanation. I will move it a userpage so I can work on it at my pace. One more question though, how do they not meet the inclusion criteria if they are managed by same manager as John Mayer, have write ups in Spin Magazine, and are going to the studio with an extremely prominent producer?

Kgcarlso91 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, once the page is complete, would you mind doing it a once over and give me any tips to make it better (since you have a personal interest and all) ?

Kgcarlso91 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read the criteria. As far as I can tell there are no criteria about how famous the band's producer or manager is, so just having a well-known manager doesn't mean a band automatically deserves a Wikipedia article. As for their review in Spin, it depends how in-depth that is (a sentence or two is not enough to prove that the band is notable, although a full-length article might be; it depends how "important" the publication is considered) but I don't know enough about the music industry to answer that off the top of your head. In any case, if you think there are materials such as that to help prove the band's notability, you need to include them in the article. As the writer, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the band meets the notability requirements. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the Walk the Moon page taking into account your suggestions. Please review and give feedback. ~~Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgcarlso91 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the quality of the writing was quite poor. I had to go through and proofread much of it, particularly punctuation.

Other than that, there's not much more feedback I can give. In my opinion, the case for notability in the article right now is borderline. It makes a strong enough case that it won't be speedily deleted like it was before. On the other hand, the case is weak enough that I can't guarantee you no other editors won't decide to nominate the article for a deletion discussion. (The difference between the two is that, in the former, an article blatantly doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria so an administrator deletes it unilaterally; in the latter, the situation is less clear, so numerous users have a discussion about whether to delete the article or not and try to reach a consensus on what do to about it). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When you say quality of writing do you mean grammatically or the language? or both? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgcarlso91 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I mostly mean punctuation errors and inappropriate tone, as I stated in the edit summaries for the corrections I made to the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Four parameter

Is it possible to make a new (possibly hidden) category for four=no parameter so that we can check all the remaining DYK, GA, FA articles and not have to keep rechecking them in future efforts to go through articles not at FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean a category for all articles that are currently FAs and have previously been GA and have appeared on DYK, but don't have Four Awards? It is possible. What about former (demoted) FAs? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now we would be working from a static list. Eventually some of them will be demoted. Not sure how efficient cleanup will be on the four=no side. Probably, a four=former parameter would be good as well. Maybe a hidden cat for four=notformer would work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that list just a list of all the FAs that have previously been GA and appeared on DYK, but don't have Four Awards? If that is the case, then it's possible to make a category appear for them without any need to add |four=no. That seems more efficient than having to go in and manually edit all 400 articles in that list. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a list of all the FAs that have previously been GA and appeared on DYK, but don't have Four Awards, but we are not sure whether each one should be four=yes or four=no yet. It would be great to have a category for them. But since I may spend some time checking them for FOUR eligibility and may not be the only person doing so we need a way to determine which ones have been checked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So basically, the idea is that things FA-GA-DYKs without any |four= parameter specified should go into a category of "possible but not yet checked" articles, those that have been checked and don't qualify should have |four=no set and not be included anywhere, and those that have been checked and do qualify should have |four=yes set and go into Category:Wikipedia four award articles. This is doable, I should be able to make it sometime later today. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you create a category for those that have not been checked yet that remains current for new FAs and newly-checked articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The category would automatically update itself, so as soon as an article becomes possibly eligible (e.g., once it becomes an FA, assuming it has already been through DYK and GA) it would add itself to the "needs to be checked" category. As soon as an article is checked (e.g., as soon as |four=yes or |four=no is set in the talk page) it would be removed from that category forever. It would be placed in Category:Wikipedia four award articles if |four=yes were set, or placed in no category if |four=no is set. (It's technically possible to have the checked, ineligible articles go into a category as well, but I don't see any reason to do so; if they're ineligible they're never going to become eligible, and as far as I can tell there's no need to maintain a list of articles known to be ineligible.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are all over it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated ArticleHistory; Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles is starting to fill up now. It may take a few days for all those articles to appear in the category, because of Help:Category#Categories_and_templates. This delay is a one-time thing; in the future, new "possibly eligible" articles will go into the talkpage as soon as they pass FAC and their ArticleHistory template is updated by the bot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory

Just wanted to let you know that your recent edit to the above template is causing an extra whitespace to appear after the template, in headers on article talk pages. I think it is related to the spaces involving the "include" and "noinclude" tags on the template. It's a protected template, so I thought this would be the quickest way to notify you, since I can't fix it myself. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I had noticed this when I was testing this out in my sandbox, but at the time didn't think it was a problem. Now that I see it on actual talk pages, though, it is quite ugly. I think this fixes it, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet fixed, see an example with Template:WPBS, Talk:Nostradamus. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The page just needed refreshed. Changes to transcluded templates sometimes take some time, or clearing the cache, to show up. See Help:Category#Categories_and_templates or Help:Null edit for more information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it's fixed now. Thank you, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, see: Talk:Charlie Chaplin, when the ArticleHistory template is above the talk header template, then there is an unwanted whitespace again. Can you figure out why it's doing that? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, found the problem, the ending of the includeonly tag needs to be on the same line as the last bracket. See for the code. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you leave a note at WT:FOUR explaining what is possible when you think you are done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected templates

Was you recent edit to Template:Multiple issues discussed anywhere? If not, could I just remind you that changes to protected templates should normally be proposed and discussed on the talk page. Other editors have to do this, and being an administrator does not give you any additional authority to bypass this stage. I'm sure you know this and I hope a little reminder is not taken the wrong way. Thanks for listening — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this was a controversial change, as it doesn't change the way the template works and anyone who doesn't want to use the additional parameter can simply not use it. The template documentation includes clear instructions for adding new parameters, which gives me the impression that addition of new parameters is not a big deal. According to the log, the template was protected because it's a highly visible WP:high-risk template, not because it's controversial.

Anyway, if you disagree with this simple addition, you are free to start a discussion about it, and I can undo it in the interim. I just don't see any point. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Styles

The reversion is fine and thanks for letting me know. I meant to see what linked to it and was interrupted. Sorry about that. That said, it would be better as a navbox instead of as a sidedbar, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

hook comment

Hello. Thanks for proposing an alternate hook here. I replied there. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Tony1 found a quote I pulled from a NYT editorial useful. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Restless

Hey again, thanks for the continuing copyediting. You might want to go over the Reception section I made. It took awhile to find resources for that, given the episode aired more than 10 years ago. Wish I could find its Nielsen ratings to include, but that seems impossible. Anyway, do you think its ready for a GAN? The only thing I can see needing improving is the lead probably needs to be expanded. Do you think you could help with that? Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty awesome how far the article has come since you started working with it. Like you said, it's of course not perfect yet, but I think it's more than ready for a GAN. I'll try to sit down and do a full read-through and copyedit from beginning to end in the next couple days. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words! I'll hold off on the GAN until you do a full copyedit. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still fine to go ahead and nominate it any time. In my experience it usually takes at least 2 weeks after nomination to get someone to start reviewing (and probably even longer for TV-related articles, since there are many more nominations for those), and even after that it will take the reviewer a while to do the review and s/he will probably allow a while for the revisions to be made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. I went ahead and nominated it now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help: Difference of Simple English wikipedia and English wikipedia

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

蹩脚英语

英语好烂呀！最近跟维基用户有事要说，无奈几乎不会英语，说不了话。你得帮帮我呀！这次要删除文章，你告诉他行不行？--俠刀行 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• 可是你忘了我不会说英语吗？最多只能为外语提供连结，再来就不行了。还有收到讨论，好像措词强烈。应该还能在这编辑吧？只要有意义就行，怎么说好像不准我在这，请停止强硬的手段。--俠刀行 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of Xinjiang pages

Hi from Hangzhou. There's two Xinjiang pages that keep getting hit by an odd form of vandalism: Ilham Tohti and Nur Bekri. Someone using unregistered accounts keeps adding a bunch of fictitious "relatives" to the pages. Can you keep an eye on these pages? You're a much more active user of Wikipedia than I am. The vandalism sometimes sits unchanged for days or weeks before I catch it. If you want to reply to this message, please leave it on my talk page. Take Care David Straub (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for working on Korea related articles. Nice to know I'm not the only one interested in the area. Heck, it even appears you are fluent >.> NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe...thanks, but actually I don't speak a word of Korean (unless you count "thank you" and the names of foods!) :S rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Darnit. You mask your lack of korean knowledge better than I :( NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested

It's this again. Because it's a strong statement should we weaken it to "a significant factor"? I'd like to get a suggestion on what I can do to help it out, if you can, please. Thank you. Jesanj (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about article-view stats tool

Is it really possible that my wonderful article about Uppsala's Botanical Garden got zero hits on July 12 when it was at DYK? And zero hits yesterday July 13 as well? Sharktopus wonders if he needs to change his brand of toothpaste to become more popular. Sharktopus ^talk 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[lurker] Nope, the thing sometimes dies, but then it comes back to life again and shows the missing days. Techno Viking fell off a cliff too. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweet nothings

There is a discussion here that may be of interest to you. --88.160.245.226 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope you are ready and eager to play with some code ...

It would be great to get those nomination subpages going, if you have time to look at that. Sharktopus ^talk 12:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're ready to go whenever, I just haven't done it yet because my internet is sporadic right now and I'd prefer to be around to fix or undo at short notice if things go wrong. I'll be back to normal by around midnight Saturday (UTC) and I think I'll just go ahead and make the transfer then without asking anyone, since there didn't appear to be any opposition last time I checked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 24, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing to My Name" is the English title of a 1986 Mandarin-language rock song by Cui Jian (pictured). It is widely considered Cui's most famous and most important work, and one of the most influential songs in the history of the People's Republic of China. The song is recognized as the first rock song in China and was an unofficial anthem for Chinese youth and activists during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Both in its lyrics and instruments, the song mixes traditional Chinese styles with modern rock elements. In the lyrics, the singer addresses a girl who is scorning him because he has nothing. The song has also been interpreted as being about the dispossessed youth of the time, because it evokes a sense of disillusionment and lack of individual freedom that was common among the young generation during the 1980s. (more...)

I tweaked the wording of the second RfC proposal at DYK

Hi, you're the only one to post a Support in these few minutes, and I took your point and altered the wording. Is it OK? Tony (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which I prefer more really. I guess expiring in 7 days regardless of a review would be more effective for weeding out boring hooks (those that didn't attract any reviewers--although it's likely that people will make "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" arrangements), whereas expiring 7 days after a review will be more effective for weeding out articles with unresolved problems. From a technical standpoint (what I mentioned about adding a blurb to the template), either way is doable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Nothing to My Name article

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to My Name

Just passing by to offer my congratulations after after seeing "Nothing to My Name" on the WP front page. It didn't click until I began reading the introductory paragraph, but then I thought that it sounded familiar. Jumped onto the talk page to confirm and sure enough, I was the GA reviewer back in early 2009. It was a great article then, so it's good to see the work you've put in since has been rewarded. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey there... thank you for setting me straight on the new DYK drill. I appreciate it!! :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks. Question: If I submit two or more articles in one hook, which I often do, I think I should review at least one per submission. Can I add "| reviewed1 = " etc. to the template? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible the way the template is currently designed. For now, I would just recommend listing one review when you nominate, and then later adding the other reviews by hand (by copy-and-pasting the code that's already there, and just changing the article name and diff). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being so patient with the mess I made last night at DYK. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum

Any chance you could finish your review of Template talk:Did you know/Icelandic Phallological Museum? Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Sharktopus finished it before I saw this message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences

I'm not sure how far I need to go with this. Would you mind having a look? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how much you need to add for the nomination to pass? I already rejected it and won't reconsider without a pretty much total rewrite with all new sources. By then, the article will be far more than 5 days old. Basically I'm just waiting for someone else to remove the nomination (I don't remove nominations I've rejected or promote nominations I've verified; I like to wait for someone else to do it just to ensure that someone else is taking a second look). I suppose it's possible that someone might come along and disagree with my assessment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Review template

I'm afraid the acrimony of the last few days, combined with the urgency with which some people are pushing their own agendas, has led to a lack of participation in the WT:DYK discussion about your proposed template, so I thought it might be just as well to bring the discussion here for now.

I like the format of your template, but I do think it needs greater differentiation. In particular, I think there needs to be a separate line for the hook and article checks or it's going to lead to confusion.

I've spent a few minutes thinking about the checks I consider to be essential and come up with the following summary. There may be some that I've missed but here's what I've come up with so far:

Hook: Clarity | Neutrality | Citation(s) | Interest
Article: Newness | Length | Cited paragraphs | Source formatting | Source quality | Article quality | Neutrality | Plagiarism

Some of the fields might require some explanation, but anyhow, please let me know what you think. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Those look good to me. I'll see what I can do about updating the template with them.

While I was putting it together, one of the main things I had trouble with was trying to decide which checks are redundant and which aren't. For instance, technically "source quality", "neutrality", and "plagiarism" are all included under the umbrella of the "within policy" rule (even though RS and PLAG are guidelines, not policy, everyone seems to feel that we should be enforcing them at DYK as well); thus, a check to ensure that articles meet core policies/guidelines should include all those. On the other hand, I guess they are different enough issues that a reminder wouldn't hurt, and I'm sure if I propose the template without all those things listed separately someone is going to scream and yell that I don't care about plagiarism/reliability/BLP/whatever their pet issue is. Thus, while DYK rules 1 (length), 2 (newness), and 3 (cited hook) get one slot each in the template, DYK rule 4 (within policy) already has at least 3 slots alloted to it.

On the other side of the coin, the template also includes a bunch of things that aren't in the official rules (which I noticed when writing up the documentation and trying to link each of the parameters to a rule). For instance, "cited paragraphs" isn't on WP:DYK#Rules, I think it's only in the Additional rules (if that...it might only be in the WT:DYK archives, I'm not sure); hook interest is only mentioned in passing, and on WP:DYK it's worded more like a suggestion than a rule (although in reality it seems we're getting closer and closer to enforcing it as a rule, I know I am). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about some of these fields is to remind or alert reviewers that they need to be checked. I don't think it does any harm to include fields like "hook interest" - for one thing, the more radical reformers will make a fuss if it isn't included, for another, it's always been a consideration, just one often overlooked. The paragraph requirement is one that I have always been meticulous about, and that I know other longstanding reviewers feel strongly about (it had consensus as I recall) so I think it has to be in there.

I think at some point we will also have to author some explanation of the various fields, perhaps in the template doc, or somewhere else if that is unsuitable. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How are you going with this Rjanag? Did you get it done yet, or is there some holdup?

On reflection, I'm thinking the hook and article checks should be separable, for example for the use of alt hooks and multinoms.

On a related topic, I'm reconsidering the notion someone had of hiding nom discussons at T:TDYK to make the page smaller and more manageable. That would have obvious disadvantages, mainly that the discussion wouldn't be there to catch someone's eye and get them involved. But then, if just the hook and some additional info were present, it might make it easier for people to find something to review that interested them. I'm just mentioning this because if we went for such a system, it wouldn't matter so much if for example some people wanted to use a longer template like Tony's. Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted with some other stuff for the past few days. I got into a bit of a holdup with the template when trying to make it possible to add a signature, which Tony asked for at WT:DYK#Another template. Personally I don't think that's necessary, because I was still hoping people would comment below the template (e.g., fill out the template but also write something like "I checked for this, that, and this, and that, and they all look ok"); but it's not a clear-cut issue so I think it's legitimate for people to want signatures, even if I disagree with it, and anyway he seems to have a different idea than I do of what the template is actually supposed to be used for anyway. Anyway, to make a long story short, it is not technically possible to add a signature to this template in any way that I find satisfactory (all the solutions I've found are either very ugly, make the template more and more similar to Tony's, or double the size of the template and the amount of parameters people fill out; I'll spare you the details unless you want to know) so, if people prefer a template that editors can literally "sign off on" within the template itself, then this one might not be worth spending any more time on.

As for the other thing, separating hook and article checks would be easy (I could just give the table one row for hook checks and one for article checks, or there could be totally separate templates for hook-only and article-only checklists). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a full sign-off, how about just a nic? - ie include a field with just three squiggles (~~~). It would still add the accountability, but without the clutter. Which reminds me, I'm not sure what the current status is, but I do think the article template at least will need a comment field where people can expand on their concerns and sign off. But the comment itself doesn't have to be "part" of the template - it can just be reproduced below the checklist itself. BTW I think we will probably need separate checklists for article and hook because of alts and multinoms. Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=y ~~~
 | newness=y ~~~
 | hookfact=n ~~~
 | hookinterest= y ~~~
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

{{User:Rjanag/template
|length=y
|lengthsig=~~~
|newness=y
|newnesssig=~~~
|hookfact=n
|hookfactsig=~~~
|hookinterest=y
|hookinterestsig=~~~
|sources=
|sourcessig=
|npov=
|npovsig=
|plagiarism=
|plagiarismsig=
}}

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=~~~
 | newness=~~~
 | hookfact=
 | hookinterest=~~~
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=y
 | newness=y
 | hookfact=n
 | hookinterest=y
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

*... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of '''[[water]]'''?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{User:Rjanag/DYK hook checklist
|format=~~~
|citation=~~~
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest=~~~
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
|length=~~~
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=~~~
|formattedcitations=~~~
|reliablesources=~~~
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=Water
}}
{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKX}}
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=Ice
}}
:*The article [[Ice]] is still a stub. ~~~~

Rhetoric

It is studied widely in many American linguistics department. See Carnegie Mellon's Linguistics website here. Please change. No policy is being violated here. ElbowingYouOut (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, any single example is not going to prove "widely". Furthermore, that wasn't the only part of your edit I objected to; I also disagreed with your wording that made it sound like "grammar and rhetoric" are the major divisions of linguistics, which they are not (saying "linguistics comprises grammar and rhetoric" is just as silly as if I said "linguistics comprises pragmatics and phonology"...there's more to it than just two randomly chosen subfields).

Anyway, I already told you that you are welcome to start a discussion at Talk:Linguistics. I already know what your view on the matter is and you already know what mine is, so we aren't going to get anywhere unless you solicit more input. Continuing to edit war at the article, however, is no good. if you still disagree with me, just start a discussion at Talk:Linguistics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. No issues. I'm willing to discuss this on the talk page and list a number of suggestions to start sections on sub-fields, etc. Rhetoric and functional linguistics are some of these. ElbowingYouOut (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

email

• thou hast  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion

Please explain how you are unable to discern at the very start of the first sentence in this text any reference to the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel. If you still can't see the reference, perhaps you might find it in the title of the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time I didn't realize "Institute of Marine Sciences" was referring to this exact institute. I have already restored the reference. But I don't appreciate your snarky tone. There's no need to get snarky with me just because I pointed out legitimate problems with your article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You originated the snarky tone, which I don't appreciate either. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever being snarky with you, the only interaction I remember having with you is at Template talk:Did you know/Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences where all I did was review your article and point out problems with it in an objective way. Is this is the way you're going to treat every reviewer who volunteers to look at your nominations for DYK, good luck getting people to waste their time on your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand how you guys operate this now. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)`

Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project DYK

It is listed as the last entry for July 22, and has been for over a week. VI_WS ^talk 03:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. LOL. Brilliant, can't believe I never stopped by to say Hi on your talk page. I'll play around with some ways to make it as unintuitive as possible. Maybe auto populate or something. Sorry about hijacking your earlier discussion thread and thanks for the time you put into making the nomination sub-pages possible. I know it has been discussed in the past, but you made it a reality. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Event-Related Potential

Regarding your edits on the page Event-related potential, I think the results were the exact type that encyclopedia readers would look for under the "Research ERP." I don't understand why you deleted them, could you let me know what you were thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journals88 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for the reason I said I removed it. Thousands of ERP studies are published every year, and there's no point devoting a press-release-like paragraph in this Wikipedia article to the results of each one of them. ERP research has "found that it is possible to use EEG and EMG" to detect many things, and there is nothing particularly special about the one recent study you mention there. Wikipedia has a policy against devoting undue attention to minor topics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gloria (Handel)

Thanks for a good addtion (s. T:DYK) - You reverted my change to an archived review, which I understand in general. But this now looks (how do I not say?) ugly, a line with a red link without content. Will that eventually be filled? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No; the original idea was that this line would be filled out and "signed off" by the admin who moves the article from the prep area to the queue, but at WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this? there was consensus not to do that, so these lines won't get filled out; they don't appear anymore in newer nominations. If you want to remove them that's fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will, it's a work in progress, progressing a lot thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for all the trouble, and thanks for the assistance. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rowing about rowing

I find your reasoning for reversion on the hook about the distance rowed thoroughly illogical. You editwar on the grounds that it is inappropriate to editwar in the prep area (where there is no specific talk area of any duration). There is a reason why the prep areas are editable: so that they can be edited. You defend, and editwar to revert to, a hook that makes a claim absent from the article, which is contrary to the principles of DYK, and ignore the points made in the editnotes. Likewise, on the hook about deaths in custody in Malaysia, you seem to prefer to publish a false claim that the two year period in question is current so that you ban make some kind of procedural point. Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The procedural issue is, per WP:BRD, making a change to one of these pages once is ok, but once someone has reverted you that means there is a disagreement over wording and the original, status quo wording should be restored until the disagreement is resolved. It's not appropriate for two editors to revert one another over and over again once a dispute is realized; that is to say, once the first revert has been made, things should be taken to a discussion page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK changes

Hi and thanks for responding to my comments here. My main problem with the new system is with the extra headings which now appear. When scrolling down the page it can be confusing when some headings are main subject headings while others are shoulder headings, both of which have a similar appearance. I find it difficult sometimes to discern one from the other. With the old system when you saw a heading you knew it was the beginning of a new subject. Perhaps if the shoulder headings were a different colour that might make things easier. I know this sounds a bit confusing, but hope you get the idea. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "shoulder headings"? The only headings the page has are those for each nomination, and those for each date (e.g. "Articles created/expanded on August 5", and it's been that way for almost 3 years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean the ones which are underlined. If you don't look at them closely they can seem confusing. Maybe it's just me. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a new review checklist which has been introduced by User:Tony1 without consensus, and is under discussion at WT:DYK. I'm working on a different version of a checklist (see #Samples) but I don't know what's going to happen. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think yours looks much better actually, and is a lot easier to follow. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just opened a discussion about these at WT:DYK#Review checklist templates, you are welcome to comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Another change: Can you check the ellipsis you put in front of the Dick Gordon hook in Queue 6? Looks different. BusterD (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Fixed now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching that. The Ilham Tohti page also got hit. Someone just has a bizarre sense of humor! David Straub (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to discuss the topic about Cai Changqing

Yes, you said that the case of Cai Changqing is certainly a child abuse, but it's not be regarded as a case of feral child since Changqing was suffering abuse after he was 10 years old.

From my view, I think that he can be classified into a new-found case. My explaination is, he is speakless since he was mentally-handicapped, while his uncle has locked him with a iron chain and ignore him. He didn't get any care from adults. He acts like an animal, and cannot contact with the others.

The above points are to support my own personal view. If your opinion is not the same with me, we can both discuss in this talk page again.

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The new DYK nomination procedure

Thanks for asking. And I can imagine how much work it took, so my sincere thanks for that, too.

This is Exhibit A, as far as I'm concerned. This poor kid (a freshman trying to get extra credit for a psych course by nominating the article he'd worked on at DYK) gave up. As you noted on his/her talkpage, Step 3 was never done. I think Template talk:Did you know#How to list a new nomination is admirably clear, so the problem must have occurred with filling out the template. I also see people at the talk page saying they can't handle that. And I get the impression from what I have skimmed that the template now requires inserting the name of an article one has reviewed? If so, that cuts me out—I don't often have time to meet the 5-day deadline and also take the time to do a proper review of someone else's baby within that same window. Also was there ever consenus for requiring the review to be done in advance of the nomination? And there was at one point consensus for considering alternate ways to satisfy quid pro quo that would be even harder to fit into a template. I suspect the freshman just didn't understand half of the template—his/her edits to the article suggest massive confusion (placing a reference before the first word of the text, for example), but it seems no one but you saw that nomination until I checked the article and the editor's contributions, because the mangled edit didn't send it to the nominations page. And it was a good hook. I don't think there's a procedural solution to people becoming so flummoxed that they don't add their nominations to the page. Because we need distinct subpages for each nomination for recordkeeping purposes. But it's indicative of the fact it's going to drive away some people. And if the template can be simplified at all, please, please do so. In particular let weirdoes like me fulfil the QPQ after getting the article ready and nominating it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the failure here is mostly the teacher's; if a teacher wants to use Wikipedia as a project, it's his/her responsibility to educate him/herself about the process and to let the students know that DYK involves more than just posting a nomination an hour before your class deadline and then wiping your hands of it.

As for listing the reviewed article in the template, I tried to be clear by writing "if you have reviewed another article, list it here" (emphasis mine), but I could try to make it more clearer, I guess. The DYK rules state that the review requirement only applies to editors who've had fewer than 5 DYKs. I think it also says it's ok to do the QPQ review after nominating. Anyway, I believe that at some point no amount of technology can make up for simply reading instructions, and therefore I tend to be hesitant to update the template to get rid of problems that could be avoided just by reading the instructions--it seems many people nominate DYKs without reading them at all, and maybe it's wrong of me but I don't usually try to hold their hand very much, I just tell them to read the rules/instructions.

As for simplifying the template, I've already tried to make it as simple as possible by marking the mandatory fields (e.g., article, hook, author) and not the optional ones, and the editnotice when filling out the template includes a link to Template:NewDYKnomination/guide, a step-by-step guide to filling out the template.

But anyway, it seems like most of your concerns are about the nomination template itself, not the new system per se. This template has been in use since late 2008, and the review thing was added to it last October, so there's nothing particularly new about any of these issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's simply the old template plus creating a subpage? That's not the impression I've had from looking over the talkpage! Maybe time for some damage control there.

I have tried very hard not to bite the instructor, but I really, really wish someone had spotted this situation before the course ended. I left him a long message with links and advice and he has now added himself to the list at WP:SUP. Also he will presumably next be teaching in the fall, when he and the students will have considerably more time, and he's agreed to add a copyediting step to what he has the students do. However, what these students did gives us points of data, particularly this one who gave up. And failing to do Step 3 happens often enough at AfD that I've noticed it. So this is a human failing that doesn't just apply to freshmen at a community college.

Is there any way to make incomplete nominations apparent to any do-gooders who might want to do what you actually did and go tell the nominator at their talk page? Does it come up on a list somewhere or could such a list be automatically generated? This kid was already way behind on the assignments and in the last week of the course—he may well not have seen your message. Other editors presumably will look at their talk, even if they don't go back to TT:DYK as they should. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of un-transcluded nominations (failing to do Step 3), there's not an easy automatic way to do it; as far as I know, it requires a bot. I am looking into getting DumbBOT (the bot that does this task at AfD) to do it here, but the bot operator hasn't yet responded to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd report back that partly as a test, I nominated Jan Buijs and it was eventually approved and featured at DYK. The transclusion step did indeed weird me out - it took me a total of 3 edits. The last one because for some reason I thought it would bold the article name in the hook, also. After going through the process I do feel it's a similar situation to nominating an article for deletion, with the last step being hard, but I note that unlike my memories of doing an AfD, you had a version of the final-step instructions be there when I needed to do it, whereas at AfD I was forced to have two tabs open because otherwise the instructions for Step 3 would be gone when I needed them. I'm not sure what more can be done to simplify things; I note an experienced DYKer recently forgot to put the article name in one place. I'm sure a lot of us were doing what I used to do and keeping a copy of the nomination template somewhere to be copied and pasted into Word to get the hook inserted. In short, it wasn't as difficult as I'd feared, but it was difficult enough that I made stupid mistakes. I think getting a bot to rescue incomplete nominations would be a good idea. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Review template (2)

Hi Rjanag, sorry for not getting back to you earlier on this, the reasons - apart from the fact that I'm getting tired of this whole debate about DYK's future - are firstly that I am not sure how to proceed from this point, and secondly that I was hoping maybe a few other people might carry the debate further forward for a few days and give me a break. No such luck.

Since you asked, I must say that I'm not terribly keen on the DYKX/Y templates. Couldn't you at least have a single template to which you provide a "y" or "n" field? Then the templates could be preloaded into the checklist fields and users would just have to add the letter, ie you would have something like {{subst:DYKfield|}} preloaded and users would just have to add the y or n, so it would be {{subst:DYKfield|y}} etc. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also getting pretty tired and frustrated. It seems like when there's a big juicy argument going on everyone wants a piece of it, but as soon as you want to actually get something done or get people's feedback about something concrete, no one's interested any more (and I don't mean you, I just mean in general)...oh well, I guess we'll make do with what we've got (until someone comes along to complain about something I did months after I asked for their input on it :P).

As for having a single template inside the review checklist, that seems like a good idea, although I think people who find e.g. |length=<!--{{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKX}}--> will also find |length={{subst:DYKfield|}} confusing. Also, fields left blank would just become blank (i.e., I don't think there's a way to keep them there until they get filled out; once the page is saved everything would turn into Y, N or nothing). That might not be a problem, since if one or two fields are left blank then someone can copy and paste the other stuff to fill the holes. On the other hand, if someone only reviews one thing (or none) and then saves the page, then the next person might not know how to add a Y or N.

Overall, I think the best solution is to either go with the two templates (people got used to {{subst:DYKtick}} et al, I assume they can learn this as well), or to scrap the signatures entirely and go with a far simpler template (the thing that makes everything so complicated is trying to get the sigs in, and for reasons NuclearWarfare and I expressed at WT:DYK I don't think they're necessary). Or go with signatures but no Y/N; that would also be simpler (just ~~~s would do the trick). But those people at DYK are going to have to decide what they want. (Earlier today I asked Tony to respond there, since he was the main person who wanted signatures anyway...although now I kind of regret it. The people who should have the most say in the design of the checklist ought to be the people who keep DYK running and will actually use it, rather than the people who are just going to rub it in everyone else's faces when they have a bone to pick....oh well.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would much prefer to go with the DYKfield option (although a better name might be DYKpass) because as a reviewer it means I only have to add y or n to each field and can do it quickly. I don't want to have to type out subst:DYKX/Y for every field or have to paste it in. This may not sound like a big deal but I think it would be a significant disincentive to participation for me to have to type all that out, and if it's a disincentive for me I'm sure it would also be for others. I'm not sure what you mean by some fields being left blank by that method but as I understand it a blank field is the desired result for an unreviewed field.

In regards to just the ticks without sigs, it's simpler and more elegant and at first I too thought it would suffice, but I can see Tony and Sandy complaining about it down the track, besides which, I think Tony has a point that different checks can be made by different users and sigs would make the accountability clear. For example, I might want to know, in an incompleted review, who had ticked off the various fields, because if it was someone I didn't know or didn't trust I could run a doublecheck. So I do think that system has advantages, but if you feel strongly about it I guess we could run a poll to see which method had more support. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding typing out the template or pasting it in, I think it will be less of a pain than you think if it's preloaded into every field (e.g., |length=<!--{{subst:DYKyes}} or {{subst:DYKno}}-->). The other nice thing about this is that if someone doesn't review a given thing, that code will still be sitting in the template (since it's commented out), so whoever comes along later and reviews it will be able to mark it off easily; the DYKfield/DYKpass option, on the other hand, would I think become Y rʨanaɢ (talk) for a yes, N rʨanaɢ (talk) for a fail, and disappear entirely if left blank, leaving no trace for later reviewers to use. (The only way around this would be to have it <!--commented--> out as well, but then it would require even more typing than the original option: one click to remove the <!--, one to remove the -->, and one to add the y/n on the inside.)

Regarding signatures, I posted some samples at WT:DYK of how I imagine the template working without signatures. I think if people are diligent about posting comments along with their review (e.g., not just filling out the template and then leaving without saying anything) it should still be clear who did what. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you persuaded me on the DYKyes/no front (I think they are better names than DYKX/Y BTW). I still think the signatures will be necessary though. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion regarding these alternatives seems to have come to a screaming halt. How would you feel about a quick straw poll to decide on one of the two alternatives? I feel we need to resolve this issue quickly because it seems Tony's checklist is leading to discouragement across the board, from nominators to reviewers to admins, so it needs to be replaced quickly IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of doing that too, although I'm not totally sure how to conduct it. I'll probably just list all four options (Tony's checklist, and the three I outlined on WT:DYK) and let people Support or Oppose as many as they want. But to be honest I think votes from people who actually do review articles should be "worth" more than votes from people who are just coming along to get in on some of the polling action (if that happens)...I wonder if I should make that clear from the beginning (although I think if I do maybe people will accuse me of being subjective or arbitrary...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it that way Rjanag - I would just confine the poll to whether sigs should be used with your checklist or just ticks and crosses. As you say, if you broaden it to include all options, we are likely to attract uninformed !voters at this point. Once we get a view on which of your two versions to use, then we can have a discussion about whether to use your checklist or Tony's, but quite frankly having looked at the mess at T:TDYK, I think Tony's checklist is a non-starter, and Tony himself seems amenable to the idea of dropping it in favour of something more concise, so we may be able to avoid a poll on that altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll post one in a minute. To be honest I'm not optimistic about getting many responses, given that right now it seems all people want to do is have big vague arguments about things that are never going to happen. I guess actually trying to get things done is too mundane for people...... rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Rjanag, for superlatively reimagining the code for DYK. And for implementing great novelty with great restraint and ongoing good humor. In short, as somebody else remarked above, "for being excellent." Sharktopus talk 23:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bitrot on Template:DYK talk

Hi, I noticed that on Template:DYK talk you used {{BASEPAGENAME}} twice. If an article is moved after this template is added to its talk page, it will break the link. You need to use {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}} to get the current name, used in the nom. I can't make this change because the template is full-protected. You may even want to use the nompage parameter, if that's what it does. In any event, nompage should be documented in Template:DYK talk/doc. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good catch. There are several templates that need to be updated at once (this template is called from another template somewhere, etc. etc., and parameters get passed around), so I will need to make sure I change everything that needs to be changed. I'm about to step out; I'll try to get this done before I log off tonight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I was incorrect before. The change you've suggested actually won't work, because {{DYK talk}} itself is not substituted (substitution only works when within templates that are also being substituted). In cases like you've described, the only solution is to add |nompage=. I'll add info about that to the documentation like you suggested; I think I can also look into getting the |nompage= to be filled out automatically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did this to add |nompage= into the preloaded text for this template (so that, most of the time, the |nompage= parameter will be specified...since this still relies on the same BASEPAGENAME trick it still won't work in cases where the page was already moved before the crediting was done, or where the nomination page name simply doesn't match the article title to begin with...but at least it will probably resolve the majority of the cases you were worried about). I also added |nompage= to the template documentation.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not a DYK regular, and I was just checking out the changes to the existing templates. The {{{article}}} parameter seems to try and accomplish the same goal of preserving the page's name at the time it was at DYK. Maybe {{{nompage}}} could become a simple "yes" and DYKUpdateBot can be given the task of checking whether an article has been moved since its nom, and update {{{article}}} accordingly? --Gyrobo (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. In the majority of cases this would probably work, but there are some cases where the nompage name will not be the same as the article title (for instance, nominations of multiple articles at once), and nompage allows links to be added even in those cases. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe check views could be moved to the nomination page after a hook's promotion, along with the final hook and picture? This is the first time it's been possible to have a central location for everything related to a DYK hook (much the same way all other processes are handled), so maybe you could bypass {{DYK talk}} entirely and make it part of {{ArticleHistory}}? Then you could also view the article's status at the time of its DYK with an oldid. Semantically, I don't see why the discussion over an article's DYK is different from a discussion over its deletion, or a peer review: they're all actions which affect the article, and {{ArticleHistory}} should be keeping track of them. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} is generally only implemented on GAs and FA/Ls (or at least articles that have been through those processes). Furthermore, there has been consensus (as far as I remember) not to include a whole lot of DYK information in {{ArticleHistory}}; it basically just includes the date, and we would have to get consensus to add the hook, views, link to the subpage, etc.

the things you're suggesting above are, I think, technically doable, but mainly I just don't see the problem they are meant to solve. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} already includes dykentry, and {{DYK talk}} is generally removed when {{ArticleHistory}} is added. The transition removes check views, and now the nom page as well. I came up with a rough sketch of what I'm thinking – basically, now that DYK noms have there own pages it would be useful to keep track of the same things that other processes keep track of. Where would I go to propose something like this to the community? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to me there are two separate issues here:

1. Should {{ArticleHistory}} include more info for the dyk stuff?

   I'm not necessarily opposed to that. You would have to raise the issue at Template talk:ArticleHistory, though, as I don't have control over what goes into that template; people may have issues there about what exactly should be included, how it should be worded, etc.

2. Should new DYK articles get tagged with ArticleHistory rather than {{DYK talk}}?

   I'm not sure this is necessary given that the majority of these articles will never go through any of the other processes that ArticleHistory records (e.g. GA, FA, etc.), and if the only thing there is the DYK entry I don't think it's any more informative than {{DYK talk}}.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'll bring it all up on Template talk:ArticleHistory then. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dare I ask

... why there is something that looks disturbingly close to an edit war on my DYK nomination? I assume there isn't anything I should be doing about this, but if there is please let me know. --RL0919 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See Template talk:DYKrev#noincluded. Don't worry about it, you didn't do anything wrong and it won't affect your nomination. Some people are just stubborn. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WARNING

You are warned to cease and desist from deliberately and repeatedly breaching strong community consensus generated at an RfC only three weeks ago. This consensus determined that a list of aspects of DYK nominations should be explicitly covered by the use of a checklist.

If you continue to remove the checklist created pursuant to that RfC without replacing it with another checklist that also satisfies the community's decision, the matter will be raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard. This is likely to result in a block for the protection of the project. Tony (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we read the so-called consensus differently, s. WT:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name

Hi Rjanag! I notice your removal of information at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_name&diff=443626095&oldid=443625648

You say there is more complexity in the issue than what the sources say. The problem is, what reliable secondary sources say things like "in reality there is a lot of variation, between people and between publications. many publications *do* reverse names"?

The main thing to consider is that WP:V says that verifiability NOT truth is the criterion for inclusion. If writers say "Generally Chinese names are not reversed" then Wikipedia says "Generally Chinese names are not reversed" - If there are exceptions that exist, let the reliable secondary sources say "Exceptions include X, Y, and Z" - If there are complexities, find reliable sources that say explicitly "X complexities exist"

Also personally I have not encountered publications that say "Zedong Mao" or "Enlai Zhou". While there are cases of reversed names, usually they tend to be Chinese who live and study abroad.

I am aware that many Chinese adopt "English names" but that is not a factor here. When considering the Chinese name itself, the name itself tends not to be reversed. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• And about "("Yao Ming Fred")." - What source says that people use that form? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't require us to include sources we know are making incorrect claims. You can link me to WP:OR if you want, but Chinese names are still reversed frequently in English-language media. I've noticed this especially in local news articles about non-famous people (e.g., you're not likely to see "Jintao Hu" in a newspaper, but I often see things like "Xin Yang"); in things like directories, lists of results at sporting events, etc.; and for some actors/actresses who are sometimes credited either way (e.g., compare google results for Zhang Ziyi vs. Ziyi Zhang, or Zhao Wei vs. Wei Zhao; I know the limitations of the google test, but this still clearly shows that the reversed spelling is used). I'm not making any claims about which is used more; the point is, it's misleading to say that the reversed order is not used.

Regarding the Yao Ming thing, I don't have an opinion and I don't mind if you remove it. I guess I just accidentally reverted that along with the other stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim actually says that the reversed names are rarely used, unless the Chinese person lives or travels abroad (then it is not "rarely" if the Chinese person lives or travels abroad)

The original source is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=EzKBXxnkURkC&pg=PA632&dq=%22Chinese+word+order+in+names+but+also+the%22&hl=en&ei=KGo_TsyOLIOGsgK3wJHXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Chinese%20word%20order%20in%20names%20but%20also%20the%22&f=false

Please pay careful attention to the wording of these sentences; there is a difference between "rarely" and "never".

I am going to make a post on WikiProject China about this, so that everybody can see what's going on.

Also, about "WP:V doesn't require us to include sources we know are making incorrect claims." - People tried using that rationale in order to say "Barack Obama's not African-American" and the answer is "most reliable sources say so, so we say so" - See Talk:Barack_Obama FAQ Question 2: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say,[...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Chinese_names_in_English - I will respond to the claim about Zhang Ziyi there - WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the issue of checklists in review templates

I was hoping, and in fact I proposed, that you would include one of your own proposed table-checklist forms in the DYK review template that you created. It would be a mature and helpful step on your part toward peaceful consensus at WT:DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I decided not to bother submitting a DYK nomination

Thanks for your swift response to my comments on the new DYK process. As I noted, I am not a newbie, but the requirement to review another submission (under the new system) was beyond me. I have no problem with the submission process itself; it's straightforward and I have done it a dozen times in the past. I also didn't mind when they instituted the requirement to review somebody else's nomination; that seemed like it had some basic fairness on its side, and it was fairly simple: article age, article length, hook length, hook facts cited in article, that was about it. The problem is the new, far more complex review process, the greatly increased requirements for review, and above all the template. I hadn't submitted a DYK for several months, so I was startled to find this massive template now in use. At first I spent several minutes just trying to navigate the Template Talk page - to figure out which nominations had been disposed of and which had been commented on and which had not. Then I tried to figure out how the templates work and what I was supposed to do; there are no instructions for the template that I could find. Was I going to have to find a nomination that had no commentary at all, and complete the whole friggin' process myself? Would it be enough to sign off on just one aspect of the review? Would it be enough to add a comment below the template? And what's with all the new criteria for the article itself - copyvio, and neutrality, and what-the-hell-is-vintage? Why do the newer nominations not appear to have a template attached; is that something I'm supposed to do? It shouldn't surprise anyone that after 15 or 20 minutes I said "The hell with it" and gave up. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Feel free to quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with all your complaints about this issue. That template was put together hastily by someone with no experience in these sorts of things, and who insisted on adding it to every nomination he could find without waiting for a discussion to work out all the issues that you have mentioned. There are some discussions going on at WT:DYK regarding various aspects of this; personally I think these checklists shouldn't have been implemented until all these concerns had been discussed beforehand and a clear set of instructions had been made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about this? Sounds like a kind of rogue action, but it is going to scare people away from doing DYK nominations - possibly permanently. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This went on a lot longer than it should have, but it looks like the discussion here finally yielded a clear consensus that that user doesn't have the right to keep adding the template everywhere. I don't think it will be added anymore except by reviewers actually choosing for themselves to use it. (If I notice other editors blanket-adding it to all noms, I'll just remove it). In the meantime, I'm still working on trying to make a template that doesn't have the kinds of problems you mentioned above; there are discussions at WT:DYK#Straw poll on signatures in the review template, WT:DYK#The review checklist, redux, and WT:DYK#Review checklist templates. (Although those haven't gotten much feedback, since many people there right now seem more interested in having fights than in getting anything done....) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - I noticed that some nominations are being reviewed under the "old" system, without the template. So I went ahead and reviewed a nomination the way I used to, and then submitted my own nomination. Will be interesting to see if it gets accepted as a valid review. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine to review without using the template. Despite User:Tony1's threats to the contrary, no one has any right to reject a nomination for not using that particular review template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rjanag. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

16 of 240

I see DYK only has 16 approved noms out of 240. And the backlog is about triple of what it was a month ago. Is that because of the effort to turn it in mini-FAs or what? PumpkinSky talk 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly part of it. Another reason is because there are people like SandyGeorgia and Tony1 just sitting around waiting for their opportunity to tell DYK reviewers how stupid they are. I can't blame people for not wanting to volunteer their time reviewing with people like that around. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said. PumpkinSky talk 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The backlog isn't actually nearly as bad as it looks, because hooks are now retained on the nominations page until all hooks for the entire day are cleared and moved into an archive somewhere. Which reminds me Rjanag, I still have no idea what the state of play is on this archiving system, has it been dropped, is it being replaced by something new, or what? I'd like to be able to start clearing the page but don't really know where to start. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the status of the archiving is, but it occurs to me that one way to greatly reduce the clutter on T:TDYK while retaining the archiving would be to delete the section header at the same time an article is promoted or rejected, if it's possible to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just recently been done (in response to some people's pointing out that the links to completed noms were unneeded, made both them and the section headers disappear when an article is promoted/rejected), although it won't actually start showing up for a while.

As for the archiving, I haven't done anything yet because I haven't really gotten any feedback on it (other than the two comments from you and Crisco, and Sandy's repeated instance that there must be an archive or the world will end, even though she keeps ignoring messages or questions I send her about the archive issue). I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, I'd just like to get feedback from more people before doing so, and I'm starting to lose confidence in the usefulness of WT:DYK for anything but drama recently. I've posted so many threads looking for constructive feedback about real issues and gotten almost no response, but the moment some idiot comes around shouting in all caps about something silly or just wanting to insult people then suddenly everyone has something to say... rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess I'll post a thread asking for opinions about this archiving thing now. I'll do that before posting the thread about the review checklist I mentioned on your page; I know it needs to be done, but I haven't really been eager to do it lately because I know as soon as a few particular people show up it's just going to turn into a big drama fest with a bunch of people insulting each other. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they didn't wait, they started insulting each other pre-emptively :)

Can I delete the links which were put there for the archives at T:TDYK now? They are adding a lot to page clutter and I'm keen to get rid of them. Also, can I delete the instructions regarding the archiving at the top of the page? It appeared from the discussion at T:TDYK that nobody wants to retain the date archiving method. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I already deleted the mention of archives (in the comments at the top of each date header), and changed the instructions (so now they're no longer instructions for archiving, but instructions for removing a day). Are we thinking of different things? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we must be. I'm talking about all the links left behind after an article is either promoted or rejected. I don't see that they serve any purpose if they're not being archived and they are what is creating all the clutter at T:TDYK. They also screw up the queue summary table because the code thinks they are still live discussions. I want to get rid of these links so I can keep track of just how many noms and verifications we have at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I don't see anything wrong with removing those. It should be possible by doing this to all the old nom discussions: basically, removing the stuff from the <includeonly> to </includeonly>, and moving that whole chunk of stuff (from {{#if:yes to the end of the archive message) up above the header. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a quicker solution, I can just remove the noms themselves like this. This won't be necessary in the future, but I ca do it now just to clean up the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK looks so much better now, thanks! However, there seems to be one small problem remaining, some of the earlier hooks are still turning up, like William A. Caldwell for instance. I tried deleting them but can't do so as their appearance seems to have been coded somehow. Any chance you could fix this? Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, some older noms will end up like this. The easiest way to deal with them right now (other than letting them sit and be removed when the whole date is removed) would just be to un-transclude them from T:TDYK itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I must say I really like this new system of separate nom pages, looks like I was wrong to resist this idea when it was brought up in the past. T:TDYK is very short and manageable now, and there are no problems with edit conflicts or moving headers anymore!

BTW I noticed when giving those old noms the flick a few minutes ago that there seems to be a number of different edit links on the page now, there is "edit nomination page", "Edit nom - Article history" and "Review or comment - Article history". Presumably you are responsible for these? Which is the latest version? I think I prefer the latter. Would it be possible though to include these links on the same line as the header? It would save quite a bit of space. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, those links are my fault, I kept changing my mind or updating them every few hours one day. The most recent one is the "Review or comment - Article history". (And I don't know if there are any multi-noms on the page right now, but if there are they look slightly different, like this...I put the article history links on a separate line for multi-noms because I thought it might look cluttery to have a lot of history links on the same line with the other links, although I'm not sure now).

I haven't really tried it but I think putting the links with the header might be awkward. I thought about trying that (similar to the edit links in the headers at T:DYK/Q but, since the links are made by a template, I have a filling it would mess up people's ability to click a section link from an edit summary or article history and get to the right section. Another thing I've thought about is making the links into some sort of "toolbox" (similar to the "previous AfDs for this article" box at AfD, or the toolbox at FACs) on the right-hand side of the nom, but that would compete for space with the image in noms that have images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A toolbox sounds a little like overkill to me, unless you were planning on adding additional doodads to it. And yes, it would compete with images for space. But it sounds as if you are giving plenty of thought to these issues so I think I'll leave you to it, at least until you do something I have an issue with :) BTW, I suggested at WT:DYK that we add one of your checklists to the nom template to trial it (see the "Next step" discussion if you haven't already), but I thought it might be best to leave it for a few days as I think everyone is a bit tired of all the changes and we could probably all use a few days' break. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you could answer this. I created the secondary account User:Joe Chill Secondary. I was wondering how I can get rid of the new Wikipedia view on that account. I changed it on my main account because I found it awful and I forgot how to. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin complained about me using it to welcome editors with templates and was assuming bad faith. I removed the user page. I was just trying to be helpful. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the page layout? That is changed in Special:Preferences; click the "Appearance" tab and select "Monobook" (that's the old skin, t he new skin is Vector). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your other question: no, there's nothing wrong with using a different account for something like this, as long as it's clear the account is yours and you don't use it for anything that could be perceived as sockpuppeting or votestacking. Since it seems you only used the account for welcoming new users, that shouldn't be a problem. It's not necessary to have such an account, but having such an account is not against the rules either. Other editors have their own opinions about welcome templates and stuff, but adding welcome templates isn't against the rules; all they can say is that they don't like it, they can't punish you for adding the templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me about the DYK nomination. -- James26 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Children's Museum backstage pass

More information The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited! ...

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Close

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Coding issue?

Hi Rjanag, I have noticed that although some promoted/rejected noms are no longer appearing on T:TDYK, their templates still exist on the page. For example, on August 12 there are only five noms remaining, but in the edit window there are still 16 noms listed. Is this WAD, or something you have overlooked? If it's WAD, we may have to add something to the instructions with regards to the promotion/rejection procedure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is intentional. I wanted to minimize the number of edits needed to promote hooks, so all promoting happens from the subpage itself (promoting the subpage causes it to become invisible on T:TDYK); otherwise I think it would have been a pain for people assembling preps to have to not only copy hooks and credits from a subpage and paste them to the prep, but also open another window to find the templates on T:TDYK and remove them. The idea is then that the templates won't show up at all on T:TDYK, and they can all be removed together when all the noms in that day are resolved; people doing the promoting or rejecting never have to worry about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I thought they might need to be removed to make the DYK table on the queue page work properly, but I guess Shubinator is going to have to completely rewrite that to make the table work with the new system anyhow.

The T:TDYK instructions however still include the following statement: On Template talk:Did you know, it replaces the full discussion with just a link to the discussion, indicating that the discussion is no longer active. I think that is redundant now isn't it? In which case you won't mind if I remove it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that part should be updated now that we got rid of those leftover "promoted by..." links. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with template-less reviews

I don't know if you saw this recent sampling of quickie review summaries: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Depth_of_review. Could you please soon add some review guideline of some kind to the nomination template? Sharktopus ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look back at those older discussions and make an executive decision about which version to use (or which versions to trial). I'll try to have a look soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -- and also of course for all the work you have already done on this. Sharktopus ^talk 01:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodney King and Red Links

Thanks for the user talk. The guy who undid the last two times it is a wiki-undo-stalker with an personal vendetta. He offers no positive help or reason why he undo's things, so I gave it no weight. The edit prior said that my intro had some typo's so I corrected them. I really could care less. There was flag on top of the current into that I am about to put back up there saying that it was inadequate and didn't comply. Tried to help, but oh well. God Bless. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Thought they were previous articles that were broken. Will be more careful. Thanks!

Conflict Resolution Request

Could you take a look at the ORIGINAL Rodney King edit and assess whether that flag needs to be removed, per discussion notes. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GrubHub Food Delivery nomination

Hi Rjanag, I've fixed the referencing for GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup at Template:Did you know nominations/GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup. Is it ready to be passed? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It still needs to be reviewed; I just noticed a referencing issue, I didn't do a full review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. BTW: since when has the kind of nomination (expanded, new, BLPx2) stopped being entered into the template? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from the preload a couple days ago because I thought it's probably not needed in most cases (once a reviewer opens the history it should be obvious whether they're looking at a new creation or an expansion, and in the rare cases where it's not obvious--such as a move from userspace--the user can leave a |comment=). I figured I'd try to make nominators fill out as little stuff as possible. It's still possible to specify the |status= when nominating and it behaves as usual; it's just not required. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I worry for all those articles that have sat in user space for a while before being moved to article space; even when its pointed out it can be overlooked. Thanks for all the work on the template. Works great! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template question

I am unfamiliar with the template used at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde Tavern (Iowa). The Neutrality part says that it is a bit weasely, but the reviewer fixed it himself. The Interest area is blank. I have no idea if it is a pass or not and what to make of the template. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It can't be passed until all areas have a green check. If an area is blank, you are free to review it or check it itself; if an area has a concern (e.g., "a bit weasely") but the concern has since been addressed, you are free to remove that concern and replace it with your own green check (using the code that is already included there inside the <!- -> marks.

I haven't yet gotten around to writing up clear instructions on the usage of this template because, to be honest, I haven't even finished making the template yet. I didn't really get much feedback on the questions I had when designing it, and I didn't expect that people would be using it now when we haven't yet reached an agreement on how the template should be made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I only came here to say that I use the templates (Template:DYK article checklist and Template:DYK hook checklist) as they are as good as anything that allows me to be sure that all the critical points have been addressed. I like it because it's visual, concise, and encapsulates all the points. As to the two boxes I left blank in my review, I'm a bit unsure as to the credentials of the Sterns, but I just assumed that they were fairly well regarded but local food boffins. I'm a bit wary of the use of passive voice, but this still exists in the hook, which is what that problem was referring to. I'm not sure how that can be addressed, or whether that's the usual DYK way of creating 'interest'. I found the hook marginally interesting, so I left it blank in case anybody wanted to express their opinion for or against. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerrymadering (film) DYK

• You are quite right, sorry I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Do you think the district map would be an appropriate image then to go with the DYK?--Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think it's not a great image to use; it's not actually an illustration of the subject of the article, it's just an illustration that is somewhat related. Plus, it doesn't show up well at small size. Some DYKs are just better without images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry about moving the template. --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK Notice

Thank you for your info. Will i have to repost the DYK? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Review template preferences

Hi, it was suggested we put feedback on the issue of what template to use here? I do appreciate your trying to come up with templates to satisfy the mandate of the RfC (which I never even saw, I was staying away from that awful discussion page at the time on principle). The trouble is I don't really have any preference, except insofar as both of the alternatives I've seen you put forward in the last couple of weeks are relatively unmassive and therefore vastly preferable IMO to Tony1's. I'd really rather the use of templates in reviews be the reviewer's choice. Some people like them, some people don't, I don't consider the RfC to have been a very good expression of the feelings of those who have to do Quid Pro Quo reviews but if it's going to stand, I understand what it actually said was that reviews must explicitly refer to all the items on a list that amounted to Wikipedia policy plus DYK policy, so I see no reason why that should compel all reviewers to do it either with a checklist template or without one. But I genuinely don't have much of a preference when it comes to deciding between your templates - which is why I have never spoken up when you've asked. So there's my feedback, pretty useless though it is :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further to my comment above, as a reviewer, and as somebody who occasionally looks over reviews, I prefer the presence of a template such as yours to no template. The lack of a review template makes me uncertain what work has been done by a previous reviewer and what remains to be done. I guess Tony's template looks more intimidating, but the work behind it works out to be the same because you can't skate over or fudge the requirements any more. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to be careful

DYK Canadas Wonderland

Sorry about that, please review the DYK again as I added the statement to the most appropriate place I could find within the article. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I know this probably sounds stupid, but can you explain to me what exactly fivefold means?--Dom497 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is all explained in the DYK rules. To put it simply: if for example an article is 1,000 characters long, to nominate it for DYK you'd have to expand it until it's 5,000 or more. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please don't. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's useful to bring this up a day after the fact, when the discussion is already long since over. And I'm quite aware that I was insulting that user, but if you actually read the rest of the discussion you will better understand what's going on. No offense, but I don't pay a lot of attention to "warnings" based on comments taken out of context by people who are more interested in playing "spot the bad words" than taking the time to actually read the surrounding discussion. Anyone who actually does read the surrounding discussion will easily see that that user was trolling, was being deliberately stubborn (i.e., pretending not to understand a simple concept) just to prolong an argument, and had no intention to contribute anything of value. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would assume I didn't read the whole conversation. I don't agree that Malleus was "trolling". Have you read WP:NOTTHEM recently? I see you have never been blocked. I don't think I have ever blocked another admin. Let's both try to keep these records, ok? --John (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the DYK nomination review for West Wing Week.

Thanks for letting me know not to use symbols I did not know that. I understand that the hook may not appeal to all refers interests so I shall add some alternative hooks some time today or tomorrow, in order for a consensus can be reached as to which one is most appropriate. Please suggest an alternative hooks if you think of any.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Insulting?

I think we need to take this here. I understand you've worked very hard to make change at DYK and I've said multiple times that the new page templates are a fantastic edition. Can you please give me diffs of where I was insulting. I don't generally try to insult people and if I was I'd apologize. First though, I'd need to know what I'm apologizing for. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you both suggested that I don't respond to anyone's requests or concerns regarding proposed changes, and that I was "shooting down" someone's idea when really I was just trying to point out what I saw as legitimate concerns (which I consider a way of respecting and acknowledging an idea; if I just wanted to shoot it down I would have said it was a ridiculous idea, which I don't think it was). I am not looking for apologies, though, and I understand that maybe you didn't realize what you were saying, so let's just forget about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not at all meant as an insult and I knew exactly what I was saying. I think you're taking this a little too personally - you've done a lot to respond to criticism, but maybe stepping back a bit and letting others make suggestions and bounce them around wouldn't do any harm. As for forgetting about it - now I know that I've spent two years wasting my time, because improvement isn't what Wikipedia is about, so might take me a little while to get over that. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've made a similar lament on your userpage. Please try to keep in mind that DYK does not represent all of Wikipedia; while I have been repeating that improvement is not the primary aim of DYK, I never made any such claims about Wikipedia in general. It's simply unfair of you to say that Wikipedia lacks incentive for improvement just because DYK is not one of them; if you quit because of that, I'm sure it will be a net loss to the encyclopedia, but it will also be entirely your own fault. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If I quit it's because I've spent over two years of my time to improve articles and I haven't gotten into the reward game of creating new articles. If I quit, it's because I realize how monumentally stupid I am. If I quit, go ahead and tell yourself that it hasn't anything to do with a single thing you might have said to me if it makes you feel better. I'll take the responsibilty - I have only myself to blame. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't simultaneously say you're above the "reward game" because you don't create new articles, and go around saying at other pages (I can see your contribs, you know), that you don't like DYK because it's not rewarding your work. Why not just admit that you apparently have no problem with reward culture, you just wish you were getting rewards for what you do (and instead of taking your work to a project like GA where it will get rewarded, you insist that you get your reward from DYK for whatever reason). Because that's honestly the impression I'm getting from your comments; here you say you're not in "the reward game" but elsewhere you're saying the problem with DYK is it doesn't reward your kind of work, and even though I have told you several times that you could get recognition for your efforts through GA you keep insisting that you want your reward to come from DYK instead. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can agree to drop this without hard feelings. I'm not articulating well what I'm trying to say and I think we're talking past each other. And again, I do appreciate the work you've done at DYK. I for one think it's much easier to navigate and submit a nomination. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that I suggested hours ago that we should drop it, I'm obviously fine with that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For doing so much so well and for so long to improve Wikipedia, whether you want to agree that you're improving it or not! The encyclopedia is better because of you and your work. Now, if only we could make all of the people happy all of the time, I am sure you could figure out some way to put that in code. Sharktopus talk 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work

You edited (removed) a change I made recently, and I appreciate that you are helping improve the quality of the site. Given that there are few rewards for your hard work, I thought I would say thanks. Your edit was helpful, and I will know better next time.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.239.242 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? Your addition in of itself isn't wrong, it's just that information like that needs a more reliable source (blog sources are usually not acceptable for negative information about negative people). If you can look up, for instance, a newspaper article where this was reported (there is probably one linked from the Shanghaiist post; I haven't looked carefully) that would probably be acceptable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies

I did, in fact, confuse you with another editor, I have struck the incorrect commentary, and I most sincerely apologize for the serious mistake and any resulting discomfort to you. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK

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

Thanks for fixing the Comfort Momoh DYK. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your help in deleting user pages

Hello Rjanag. Could you help me delete a few sandboxes that I'm no longer working on? The list is here on top of my user page. If you don't have time, just let me know, and I will ask another admin to help. On a different subject, I think we're getting close to a solution at Joseon Dynasty, where you have been an indefatigable and incredibly patient mediator. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for all your hard work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Could you please restore my "Chronology of the Boxer Uprising"? I think you deleted it by mistake along with "Chronology of the Boxer Rebellion"! Thank you and all the best, Madalibi (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You show great tenacity as an editor and in disputes which I much admire you for. Not to mention being a major asset to DYK and a top editor. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chinese

User:Rjanag - I recently implemented Middle Chinese into the {{chinese}} template with successful results. However, I was subsequently informed that the "Middle Chinese" header is showing up in the template even when the Middle Chinese tag isn't called in the wikitext. I've gone through the code and tinkered a bit but haven't been able to see what the problem is. As a template-newb, I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at it and see if you can point me in the right direction. I'm guessing it's a minor adjustment that I didn't make in some field.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disregard. I seem to have fixed the problem myself by adding one....simple....pipe character "|".  White Whirlwind  咨  22:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that did it. Without the pipe character, {{{mc}}} shows up (from the template's point of view) as just that when |mc= is left blank, so the template thinks something is there; with the pipe, if someone leaves |mc= blank then that becomes blank, so the template understands that nothing is there. It's easy to miss those tiny details (in the past I've often spent hours trying to find some complicated way to fix a template problem before realizing I was just missing a } or | or something). Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Tom Skinner

I have reverted your edits to Tom Skinner. I took particular care to rewrite all of the information that was taken from the DNZB site - none of it was "word-for-word", and all of it easily passes most academic tests for what can be considered copyright violation. I would advise you to check more carefully before excising work that has deliberately been rewritten to pass WP standards. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that bad writing is bad. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it seems that Pete and I both used the same primary source. Our writing styles always were similar. No wonder it looked like plagiarism. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not buying that. I know plagiarism when I see it. It's obvious that you started from one source, copied and pasted it, and then went through later changing words here and there. I don't believe some crazy coincidence that you and some other author both happened to paraphrase Skinner's autobiography the same way, especially given that up until a couple hours ago you had not cited that autobiography as a source in the article; you only did so after I pointed out your plagiarism. And I don't appreciate your earlier demand that I apologize for stating the obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe it or not. It's simply the truth. I'd get Pete to confirm the problems we've had with the past, but he's not on WP, and even if he was you probably wouldn't believe him either, No matter. It's been fun being on Wikipedia these past few years, both as an editor and as an administrator, but I cannot put myself in a position where one person decides that they can slander me - my professional standing as a writer is such that comments of this nature cannot be ignored. I'll; leave you to your little games and stop working on Wikipedia. If you wish, you can check the other 2000 articles I have started and 160000 edits I have made, in case you can find some evidence of plagiarism in them as well. If you do, feel free to delete the articles. They are no longer of any importance. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I already explained the problem at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner. Your own story doesn't match comments you made at another editor's talk page or your editing behavior before I reviewed the article. I'm just calling a duck a duck. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it exactly agrees with what I wrote at Schwede's page. I rewrote everything I took from the site you mentioned, as I said to Schwede. That you later found something that was similar to that site indicates clearly that I didn't take it from there. Similarly, who would I ask you for any section containing three or four words in a row which agreed with that website if there were section which I had copied but left intact? Neither of these things suggests that I took these pieces from that site - quite the opposite. But that's as may be. If you prefer to assume bad faith and consider me a plagiarist and a liar, this will mean little to you. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag for identifying the plagiarist known as Grutness. His contributions have been a concern to me for a long time. Could you also look at the articles of Schwede66 on NZ politicians of the 19th century all his entries seem to be lifted (taken word-for-word) from the Cyclopedia of New Zealand (circa 1906). The wording is Mr so & so married a daughter of the late Mr this & that. Which is OK when it was written contemporaneous with the subject in 1902 but sounds silly in a Wikipedia entry two hundred years later in 2011! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagstaff1 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I obviously don't know who the ill-mannered sock puppet Flagstaff1 is, but to make it easier for you to follow up on the allegations, all my new and expanded articles are listed on this page. Schwede66 04:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of following up on that. I'm not here to do witchhunts; I pointed out what looked like plagiarism when it was placed in front of me, but I'm not going to go around looking for it when I have no reason to suspect it.

Flagstaff1, whoever you are, any editor is welcome to review any other editor's contributions. If you find specific instances of concerning wording you are welcome to notify me or anybody else; you don't need to be an administrator to point out concerns in any article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag, so far I have got 23 examples of Schwede66 plagiarism-but this task is ongoing as he produces them daily! He seems to copy word-for-word articles on 19th Century NZ politicians from the Cyclopedia of New Zealand. Schwede66 has reverted to personal attack & has asked Gadfium to shut me down. It is a real shame that 'writers' like him exist as it effects the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I am happy to go through all his articles over time & correct them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagstaff1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Grutness. A dozen sources were posted in the AfD for New Zealand Young Farmers and Grutness seemed happy about him expanding it in the AfD. I nominated it for DYK thinking that he is an admin with good article experience so I just nominated it without looking at his non-existent job of sourcing the article. Yes, I did fuck up and I admitted that in the DYK nomination but my point is that I think that he is a liar in response to his contributions - Template:Did you know nominations/New Zealand Young Farmers. He has since blanked his user page and posted on his user page that he will stop editing. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, could you take a look at what I posted at Talk:Tom Skinner? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding DYK noms?

I noticed that some editors were transcluding DYK noms on articles' talk pages (similar to GA reviews), and wondered if maybe there could be a better way to do this. I put together User:Gyrobo/DYK nom as a test case. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in using that, although I don't see a problem with not using it either. (I'm not sure how it's "better", in that it produces the same code that is given to nominators in their editnotice, the only difference I can see being that {{subst:User:Gyrobo/DYKnom|some title}} would be a little bit shorter to copy and paste). People posting to the article talk page is not a fluke; the instructions encourage it (they don't require it, although some editors think they should). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for that discussion, then. This seems like a job for DYKBot. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What I do is just provide a link to the nomination on the talk page until it appears, then it comes with the DYK notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

Did you really template a editor that's been here since 2004 and threaten a block? WTF? That's idiotic. RxS (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Signature

This is just a bit of an annoyance to me, but... please link your signature to your userpage, instead of only your contributions and talk. I wanted to see it today, but I had to go to your talk page first to arrive at it. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My signature used to be like that, but I felt that my user page is less useful than my talk page and contribs; it's still easy enough to access and I think being able to get to someone's talk page or contribs with one click serves more purpose than being able to get to their userpage in one click. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Golden Lion Templates

It is common to use this style of templating. See {{BAFTA Best Film}}, {{Palme d'Or}}, {{Academy Award Best Original Screenplay}}, and {{Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama}}. The point is to reduce the number of links while providing the same detail by a linked network of templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FOUR service recognition

Hi

I read your bio on the ambassador mentor roster. I think you might be interested in this ANI thread, and I am optimistic that you might provide assistance.--My76Strat (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2's edit to Trot (music)

Hi Rjanag. User:Melonbarmonster2 blanked the edit already discussed in that talk page without any discussion. Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall having any previous involvement in this article; if you think Melonbarmonster is edit warring, your best option would probably be to mention him at AN3 and mention his block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Barnstar of diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You are awarded this Barnstar for diligent protection of the rules of Wikipedia. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)