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

---

...by the way, whatever happened to the suggested FA-nomination for the Urumqi-riots article? maybe I missed something... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

David Straub had some comments/criticisms, so I'm waiting to see what he has to say (I think I know in general what his criticism is, but he might have more detail). I figure that way we might be able to pre-empt some concerns that would otherwise come up at FAC. I'll probably give him another nudge in a couple days and then go ahead with the nomination if he doesn't respond after that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yepp. I think the first thing that could be done about tone is trying to find synonyms for "South Korea". Sound like a national anthem-chant. Wouldn't "the country" or "it" or whatever fit in every now and then...? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely help. I think what's really needed, though, is a total rewrite. I don't know much about macroeconomics, though, and it seems like the only people who are interested enough in editing this section are the nationalist pov-pushers/brochure-writers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Same boat. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I wanted to quickly say sincere thanks for the 2 things surrounding WGB ... the barnstar, and your comment surrounding my proposal/mentoring. I'm just trying to live by my overall philosophy about Wikipedia! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the first RfA ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've had a look ... I think I'll be more careful about my nominator(s) this time too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have no issues with you as a nom. Any comments about this? It was an old draft I found on my hard drive, finally brought it up to the userspace (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* I tried; I really tried. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your heads-up about the DYK hook. Would you mind taking a look at the various alternatives proposed here and here? Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I put off responding to this for a bit too long and it looks like now they're already accepted in the queue. Congratulations, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Coffee got that. But, taking the high road, acting above board with highly disruptive new users can deflate them. I urge you to consider that in the future before getting in a jab at AN/I.[1] Wikipedia seems to throw out welcome mats to the User:John254 sock puppet creations. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. I see you around sometimes. You do great work here, though you do not need me to tell you that. I am just stopping by your talk page to ask you if there is anything wrong with "circular links"...as long as they are far enough away from their targets? They seem to come in handy to me, as in pointing readers to spots that are not as readily (or rather not as easily) visible. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For that one, if there is to be a link there, it might be good to put an {{anchor}} in directly at the paragraph that's about Ben & Jen. I know I clicked on the "Bennifer" link expecting to go to an article about them, and was instead brought to a long section where I couldn't even see mention of "Bennifer" without searching it carefully. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry about that. Yeah, since that section has been expanded, it does not go to the Bennifer paragraph as soon as it use to. I'll leave that "term" plain...without a direct link or anchor...for now (and probably for a long time, LOL). Thanks for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks - I didn't even realize! Now, to stick my face into the screen for a piece of that cake... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I say! I had no idea this auspicious date had come around. Thanks, old chap – you're a gentleman and a scholar. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rjanag,

Please reply to this message at my email address which is <snip /> even if it is just to say you have no time for me.

I have edited Wikipedia in small ways about ten times. I used to have a talk page that vanished mysteriously, so I'll give you my email address until that is sorted out. Your views on what happened to my talk page are welcome, but that is not the reason I am contacting you.

I am writing this message because you are a linguist, and I am hoping you can advise me on how to find out if I've come up with an original idea in lexicography or not. If the idea is original I may want to publish a paper about it, and/or apply for a patent. I know little about applying for patents and still less about publishing academic papers. My priority right now is to find out if my idea is original, and that is why I was hoping to contact R Hartmann.

When I stumbled on your talk page, and saw that you are a linguist and fellow Wikipedian, I thought it might be worth a try to contact you for whatever advice you can give me about how to contact experts in lexicography. I am in a remote part of Thailand right now and there are not many libraries or lexicographers here.

I am an amateur linguist.

Best regards,

Squid Pro Roe 2

PS I am also straight but not narrow - love that one-liner.

222.123.178.213 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comment under Smash Record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxyh745 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 January 2010

Thank you; I have responded there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is not a faulty bot;[2] most of the editors it reports need prompt blocking before their vandalism succeeds. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. My bad, I'm not sure what I was thinking just there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent and all the help you've given me. It's surprising how much I've already forgotten since the days of editing continually. I shall definately exercise my right to vanish on the old account soon. Thanks Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

i was just gonna add the alternative:

{| class="wikitable" style="float:left; border:1px solid grey;"
|-
|style="text-align:center; font-size:12px; color:#9999;"|[[File:Ürümqi riots video.ogv]]<br/>Violence captured on a witness' cell phone
|}

...you're too fast. :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that looks slightly better than the thumb version I have in there now (although, of course, it takes up more wikitext). What would be nice would be to make a template for this sort of thing--I almost did that, only to notice that {{video}} apparently used to exist and has since been deleted, god knows why. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the guidelines on thumb usage at WP:CMF#Video usage, so I've posted a message at WT:FA#Videos and asked a couple people to comment...feel free to take a look, maybe you can see something I didn't! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I did look. We're fine this way, as long as we don't force the size. If the size is forced, the whole shebang needs to be recalculated and re-rendered in real time which could slow it down and make it "jump". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean we're fine with the table you posted above? The version I have in the article does force the size in the article (but forces it to the size of the original file, so there's not resizing--at least, that is how I would hope it works). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean your thumb-version is OK. (Although "stylistically," I think it does take up too much space...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

re: "Thanks for your contribution, but this nomination is supposed to be placed on the DYK nominations page, not in the template instructions themselves. I have now done it for you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)"

Thank you very, very much! I had my doubts about what I did, but could not figure out what to do instead. I spent over a half hour reading everything on this subject before daring to make a nomination, but still could not really figure out how precisely to do it. For us dummies all those details on all those DYK instruction and information pages need prefacing with a basic roadmap, otherwise we are lost like a little rowboat finding itself in the middle of the Atlantic, when we merely wanted to head across a creek. Something like:

- Do you want to nominate an article for "DYK" (link: what is a DYK?)
then:
- Go to page WW
- Click XX
- Enter into the form: a, b, and c (the rest is optional)
- Review what you have done by clicking YY
- Press the button marked ZZ to submit (link: information about what then happens)

Best regards, --Remotelysensed (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, imagine the Wiki software tracking the changes in size of articles and automatically listing them and those who had either 5-fold increases or new articles (within 7 days old) over a certain size? That would be awesome (I'm serious of course). DYK reviewers could get an extra TAB marked "DYK" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Remotelysensed, would something like User:Rjanag/Quick DYK (quick-and-dirty guide to nominating DYKs) be helpful? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The "quick and dirty" guide" is precisely what I meant and it is PERFECT. Many thanks. If I ever do anything I am as proud of as "Pergamon Altar" I will attempt a nomination again. I note that I was too late this time. Should I delete my nomination myself? Or is that handled otherwise? --Remotelysensed (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your nominations will probably be accepted anyway; the DYK reviewers are often pretty lax about the 5-day rule. I was just leaving a note to avoid confusion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I definitely feel like I am being called names and taunted (webhost, troll, quack, etc.) and being attacked personally about my various, and now multiplying, userpages.

Please check on how many of the 'Delete' arguments actually refer totally to the page in question without making some negative assessment of the user, Neptunerover. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So you stopped me before I could finish responding to all the arguments against me. That means you win. Aren't you proud? -Neptunerover (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Badgering people who hold an opposite opinion is not needed Neptune. Also, be careful on the MfD's... you're !voting more than once. I just indented one of your comments to ensure it did not look like you were trying to stack !votes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, the content has since been added (again) post deletion at: the talk page and at User:Neptunerover/another_talk_page#The_Truman_Show. -SpacemanSpiff 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesson received. I understand now that defending myself was against the rules. It is called "feeding the trolls," and is expressly ill advised. Sorry about my feeding all the trolls. I realise now it's not all up to me. There are plenty of trolls for all of the feeders. I didn't mean to be hog. (perhaps at first, but that was just me being selfish.) I can see that you've got things under control here, and so carry on.--Neptunerover (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The section you removed "Chinese" from in fact referred only to Written Chinese, not any of the spoken dialects. GSMR (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know; written Chinese is not necessarily mutually intelligible either. Written Chinese in Guangzhou, for example (in newspapers and stuff) tends to be Mandarin-like. If you write what Cantonese speakers actually say, it's not readily comprehensible to Mandarin speakers. (If you are a Mandarin speaker, try watching subtitled Cantonese, for example The Bus Uncle--it doesn't make much sense if you don't speak Cantonese.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. GSMR (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nuh-uh" captures the general niveau of the editor that removed Spoken Chinese from the Written Only list with the note that it was lexicon only. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't add any substantive points to the argument. And you still haven't expressed any reason why your view is correct, especially given arguments (which you've already found at Talk:Mutual intelligibility) that the lexicons of the Chinese languages are different. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course they're not identical. Echoing back your usage and making an appropriate comment on it is, if it is a personal attack, entirely justified. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, Neptunerover (talk · contribs) has circumvented your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything with this edit. I have reverted it. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Rjanag, I already had it stored 10 different ways on my computer (I always backup), and it will be out in book form very quickly, after which it will then be able to return to Wikipedia in the real encyclopedia area as a reference to the outside source of the Theory about Everything Book which will of course be published elsewhere. Thank you for your time and effort. I'm glad this place was here to help me with all my research, but I'm far beyond here now. Keep up the good work.--Neptunerover (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Between that and comments like "the beast of freedom cannot be contained!", it's pretty clear that you aren't actually interested in participating in this project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obscure, it's a crow. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a good cherry picker Rjanag. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the report given that you reverted. It didn't seem fair to ask for him to be blocked when he couldn't self-revert. John Smith's (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP users are still editing without gaining consensus first. Can you step in, put it back as it was before and make it clear we're going to resolve this without editing the page (e.g. sandbox) first? John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you deleted more than you should have when you deleted an entire page of mine without giving adequate reasons for why you deleted everything you deleted. Please return that which should not have been deleted in your frenzy of deletion. I had something I called "another talk page" where I put Q&As from reference and help desks. I admit I accidentally moved the wrong thing there, but when I try to undo it, I still cannot get my proper page back. Please return that which you should not have deleted so that I may continue. I have more help desk answers that I need to keep in mind. If I am storing those things in a wrong manner, then could you please help me by instructing me on how I should go about storing the answers to my many questions. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for the closing administrator to take part in a deletion debate such as occurred here? --Neptunerover (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you note clearly, he did not !vote, he made 2 clarifying points to someone else's discussion points. The close from an uninvolved admin was clearly according to the rules. Let's not start wikilawyering here, the pages were clearly not related the Wikipedia project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? That sounds like name calling to me. I only pointed out something over which I had a concern. A bite back rather than a clean explanation sounds like a cover-up to me. But maybe that's just me. --Neptunerover (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, how does anyone know the pages "were clearly not related (to) the Wikipedia project"? Nobody ever asked me ahead of time. Is everyone here required to work on it in the same way? I did a lot of work in the encyclopedia proper before getting very frustrated with the useless back and forth bickering over certain subjects which I am interested in (I do admit to picking out just about the worst Vietnam available: Evolution), so I decided to study lots of different (yet similar, I think) articles while practicing programming or whatever this is called when we make these pages. I've never experienced this before. I'm sorry, but I'm no computer geek person who is familiar with programming codes and whatever they do. I'm just a guy who is actually trying to help and practicing to get better. Who knows how the mind of a genius works, and who can point a finger saying it's working wrong? Ever see A Beautiful Mind. That guy would never be allowed on Wikipedia with the present state of affairs. Not unless he took his medication, but the medication made him useless, and so we have a catch-22. I think the deleted page was absolutely harmless toward the purposes of Wikipedia. And nobody ever complained or anything until all of a sudden Fences&Windows smacked me with a deletion tag. But he's already shown his true colors: He's bitter about something. But his personal disagreement with whatever I was writing or doing in my user space should not have been adequate grounds for instigating a deletion process. At least not without a prior discussion as is required by Wikipedia rules as well as common courtesy. I think it was a bad deletion from the get go, and for a deletion review I believe I am supposed to first discuss it with you. So then, this here is that. As well, I have some other concerns which you can read at [[3]] involving certain articles being used to support rule enforcement activities on Wikipedia, and I challenge the validity of those having been used for the deletion proceedings in question.
I thank you for your consideration. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop beating the dead horse. The consensus of editors in that discussion was that the pages were not related to improving Wikipedia; coming to me to ask the same question that was answered you time and time again in the AfD is just crying to the other parent. You are welcome to initiate a deletion review, but I doubt it will change anything. As for the rest of your message, I have not read it because I'm not interested in reading a rant about how everything is someone else's fault; focus on content, not other contributors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag, is there a 'squeaky wheel' essay explaining how that's the one that gets oiled? I for one know there is no such thing as a dead horse. A horse's carcass is just meat. A horse is a horse, of course, and not meat. A horse is a living being. The term "dead horse" is an oxymoron, for a dead living being cannot be. I hope this clarifies it for you. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you'd deleted the page I had just created. Could you give me a link to the discussion page it was discussed to be deleted on, or give me resons for its deletion the first time it was created. Is it not notable etc. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a link in the pink message that appears when you try to reach the article now (Coming Up Easy). The link is WP:Articles for deletion/Coming Up Easy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's now easy for any editor to see that the srticle was deleted. The message should probably have been added before as it seems a very popular article to create. I believe the article can be worked on to meat notability: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," which I believe we could find. However according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) it is actually probably notable by charting in the UK charts: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The message has always been there; you probably just were not paying close attention when you created the page.

As for re-creating, the consensus of the deletion discussion was that the single is not notable. If you want to re-create the page, you need to address the specific concerns raised there, not just the general notability guidelines (which are, after all, only guidelines, and are not written in stone). You also should not re-create a deleted article like this directly; you can do it in your userspace and then ask an experienced editor to review it and approve it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No I definately looked for a message about deletion because I wondered why a song as notable (in my opinion) as that one had not already been created and had wondered if it had actually been created and then deleted. The message was not displayed. I'll take your advice and see what I can create in my user space. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that 76.14.42.191 had the following to say about you.

As I said, here are six recent editors who support inclusion of the material, and you are the only one taking it out:

editor four, who reverted your removal, to keep: [4]

I've tried to tell him that you've already indicated you did not express support for the inclusion of the material, but I doubt he'll listen. John Smith's (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The points is that other editors such as Rjanag have been willing to let the material stand included, in a trimmed down form, at least, which I actually also support. I don't know of any other editor who insists on blanking it out completely.76.14.42.191 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag, sorry about all the obstinance. I discovered the rule that applied to me and made sense as far as what people were complaining about without being able to explain to me what I was doing wrong. (those darn 'others') I've become email verified, and if you could send me the deleted crap, I would consider that perhaps almost too kind of you at this point, so let me know what you think. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have to admit though, that question was 'suspect' from the start. I played AGF good cop and let the sock puppet show itself, and then Steve nailed it. I think the only personal attack I may have done was in labeling the sock puppet as a schizoid, and that was way after it was gone. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It just makes me so mad. He told me to go look it up for everyone, which I did (it took me like 2 minutes!), and then when I put the answer on his talk page, he immediately erased it, like he had only just been screwing around with me and sending me on a snipe hunt like I was some dumb ol' charlie gordon or something. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Internet is full of stupid people, you don't need to waste your time trying to prove that you're better than them. Just let them be and get on with your life; feeding the trolls just leads to further disruption.

And by the way, the next time you call someone a "schizoid" I will delete your message and will stop responding to any further messages from you. Comments like that about an editor's mental health are absolutely not appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean 'bad cop' as in 'dirty cop.' Maybe that's where the misunderstanding was. 'Bad cop' is actually just a role taken by another good cop. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the "bad cop" remark, I already know what it means. You know what I was talking about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise it's bad to label sock puppets as schizoidian, especially after already they've been dismissed. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(archived early) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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. NBeale (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(archived early) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on xkcd. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starblueheather (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjanag&diff=340776371&oldid=340772468 archived early) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag, for some reason I don't quite understand, the "<b class="Unicode">" tag in your sig causes your name to be displayed as a blank on my computer (Firefox 3.0 on Ubuntu 8.4). Omitting the "class" attribute solves the issue for me. I don't know why this is or whether other users are affected by the same problem. Would you consider modifying the sig? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. I'll have to try it out on a few different computers...I believe the original reason I put the class there was to allow the special characters ʨ and ɢ to display for people with older browsers.

I wonder if it would be any different if I use class="IPA". Can you let me know if this shows up for you?:

• rʨanaɢ

Thanks for the notification, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IPA version works for me. Apparently my browser chokes up somehow on the font list for .Unicode at MediaWiki:Common.css, selecting fonts from the list that aren't installed on my system (weird, since several others in the list are in fact there.) I can reproduce the same kind of blank when doing manually "<b><span style="font-family:Thryomanes;">" or other non-existing fonts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I'm now on a different computer and no longer see the problem even though it's basically the same system, so I suspect maybe it was all just some kind of problem with bad font installation on my end or something like that; so please don't worry too much about it; sorry for bothering you about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add some new fields to Template:Infobox_ship_begin but I forgot where they hide the code. Any chance you could point me to the right page so I can fiddle around with a copy of the code in my sandbox? I seem to recall you helped me out with this one other time. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like it's Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style but I'm not sure yet; will have to do some snooping around this afternoon. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at that for me, Rj. As it happens, another guy has now directed me to the relevant templates, so please don't waste any more time on it :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, your deletion of Matheus Lundberg was inappropriate, we don't delete articles just because they're not in English, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and either deleted if they're inappropriate, or kept for two weeks to see if someone translates it, then listed for deletion. I'm not going to say restore it, but I find it strange that as an administrator you're unaware of the accepted practices for such a situation--Jac16888^Talk 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I already commented on this at the bottom of WP:RD/L. I am aware of the accepted practices, and the article was "inappropriate", as you say above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Erasing everything doesn't help with pinpointing the problem. Do certain words frighten you. Fear is very understandable. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, users have the right to erase whatever they want on their own talkpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Neptunerover, there is no problem for me to pinpoint, I'm not even really interested in this discussion (indeed, I didn't read the one that triggered it so I don't even really know what you're talking about). I am not "frightened" by anything, but as someone who worked in community mental health services for several years I am very offended by your inappropriate comments about users' mental health.

Since whatever problem you have is not mine to deal with, there is no need for you to respond further here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing what triggered the discussion, why would you then delete it (from the other page) and then say it's not your problem to deal with? But you did. You deleted it twice. I'm sorry for not realising the possible offensiveness of referring to sock puppet as possibly being confounded by mental problems. Maybe I should not have used the charged term. I really didn't know that anyone would be so offended. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I own a bunch of these hats, but I don't know what they are called. Doppa sounds Persian and Tubeteika definitely does not. It sounds more Turkish. I think the difference is that the Tubeteika is round and the Doppa is squarish, which I think can be folded up. I've seen them both all over Central Asia. I bet there are many different types and names, so I wouldn't merge the articles just based on name, unless someone else can verify they are the same thing. Ask User:Otebig. He studied Kazakh. He might know. User:Xhancock might also know. They are both IU graduate students. David Straub (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reposted this question at Firespeaker's talk page - he's worked on a lot of Central Asian cultural articles, and should have some idea. Otebig (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I gather with this, you were attempting to make an optional title, perhaps defaulting to "Extended content" if not filled in. Unfortunately, it seems that the title is not optional. With or without substitution, it now centers {{{title}}} if no parameter is supplied.

Are you able to fix that so that "Extended content" continues to show if a title is not specified? I would if I could, but I'm afraid that templates are not my thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the poor edit summary on that. Actually I was trying to make it work if you put the title in a |title= parameter (since previously it only worked with a numbered parameter, e.g. {{collapse top|Stuff}} rather than {{collapse top|title=stuff}}. Anyway, I just added a pipe which should (hopefully) fix it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not exactly speaking my language, but "which should (hopefully) fix it" I can follow. :D Thanks. Now it doesn't say "extended content",though, which was probably useful for people not familiar with collapse boxes. Is it possible to have it default to that if nothing else is supplied? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I think this should fix it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I raised the issue before Beale did as I say on the talk page. Also, if you believe I have vested interest in Beale, I can send an e-mail to you to verify my real identity. Common sense is a good thing, but some tightening of the sentence to avoid future misunderstandings would make sense, don't you think? Vesal (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation! As to Beale, my stance was a weak keep a few AFDs ago, but with each repeated process I find the case for delete more and more compelling; I didn't take a position this time. Vesal (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I see what you mean. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I love the neat Admin actions stats on your user page. How do I get the template or script for that? Bearian (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm...it's been a while since I put that up and I remember the template itself is something of a mess. But if my memory serves me, I think it's made by creating a subpage of User:Rjanag/adminbars (for example, mine is at User:Rjanag/adminbars/Rjanag).

The numbers itself aren't updated automatically (I left a proposal a long while ago to do such, but never got a response); there is a bot that updates Template:adminstats, and I just copy my numbers from that (Template:adminstats/Rjanag) into User:Rjanag/adminbars/Rjanag. It looks like {{adminstats}} doesn't have helpful instructions up, but basically I think you just put {{adminstats|Bearian}} on your userpage and then the bot will create your stats. Once your stats are created (should be at Template:Adminstats/Bearian) then you could just copy them to User:Rjanag/adminbars/Bearian in a fashion similar to mine.

(as a caveat, though, it seems that the bot hasn't updated my adminstats in a while, so I'm not sure what's up with it.)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, that was a pretty convoluted response. The basic steps, I think, should be:

1. Put {{adminstats|Bearian}} on your userpage
2. Wait for bot to create Template:Adminstats/Bearian
3. Copy the numbers from that page into User:Rjanag/adminbars/Bearian, in a similar format as User:Rjanag/adminbars/Rjanag. Should look something like:

{{User:Rjanag/adminbars/core
|edits=
|ed=
|created=
|deleted=
|restored=
|blocked=
|protected=
|unprotected=
|rights=
|reblock=
|modify=
|user={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{show|Admin stats|{{Template:Adminstats/Bearian}}}}

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. This barnstar is awarded to Rjanag, for his efforts in cleaning up redirects and other thankless tasks. On behalf of the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Ikip 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, man, no problem. "These disagreements have sometimes led to violence and ethnic clashes, such as the 1997 Ghulja Incident and the 2008 Kashgar attack, as well as the more widespread 2008 Uyghur unrest preceding the Olympic Games in Beijing." No cite for that sentence. Thanks and good luck :) Aaroncrick (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. It's taken ages to reply, sorry; I've been really busy as of late. I know this is taking your words more literally than meant, but when you say "it is what separates the (wo)men from the beasts" it makes me wonder if other animals that feel love actually get such feelings. I think they probably do. Apes are genetically close to us so I'm guessing they do. Something I now want to reaserch one day. :) Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion would be welcome as to how to present something fair and citable. There is a very caustic quote from Pullum in this Elements of Style wikipedia entry - if you look around the web, you'll see it's not necessarily shared by everyone, and indeed it is not. I have merely cited one of numerous examples of someone (who happens to be an English professor of many years, whether notable to you or not) who doesn't share it and his well-reasoned opinion as to why, followed by the numerous opinions of others in the blod entry

I am welcome to any language you can put in which accurately reflects this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.145.123 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove well-referenced information with this edit? And cite some unknown Chinese phrase as the reason for doing so. What does 填鸭子 mean, by the way? If there is some reliable source for China offering a liberal education in its schools, please cite it. If you feel the information from the New York Times is over-simplified, please try to do better, but please don't remove well-sourced information. Fred Talk 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

填鸭子 means "feeding the duck", and refers to the memorization-based education that was common there (and still is common, although it's becoming less and less so).

As for sources that attest to the development of the education system in recent years, here are just a few (not all are available online easily, you may need to go through a database or library):

• Brandenburg, Uwe; Zhu Jiani (2007). "Higher education in China in light of massification and demographic change: lessons to be learned for Germany". Centre for Higher Education Development.
• Kirby, William C. (2008). "On Chinese, European & American universities". Daedalus 137(3). pp. 139-46. (this one in particular has a lot on the topic.)
• Li Yao; Whalley, John; Zhang Shunming; Zhao Xiliang (2008). "The higher educational transformation of China and its global implications". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13849.

Granted, there is no doubt that a lot of classes in China still focus on memorization and do not develop critical thinking skills. Support for that view can be found in sources such as the following:

• Farrell, Diana; Grant, Andrew J. (2005). "China's looming talent shortage". McKinsey Quarterly (4). pp. 70-9.
• Hulbert, Anne (1 April 2007). "Re-education". The New York Times. (mostly parroting the source above)
• Anecdotal evidence—for example, in my own experience teaching in China I often encountered students with poor critical thinking skills, the cause of which was in no small part their university education.

But, regardless of these sources, it would be an error to claim, as your edit did, that this education style is the only one in China, or that Chinese educators actively and intentionally discourage critical thinking. In many ways, past practices that weren't conducive to critical thinking were a result of poor teaching methods, not actively stamping it out (the exception, of course, is education under the Maoist era, when universities were pretty much Party indoctrination centers.) Also, the mere fact that the government is placing such a strong interest in improving critical-thinking education (as evidenced by some of the sources above, and by many recent articles in Chinese Education and Society) speaks against the claim that they actively suppress critical thinking.

Also, the fact that you put that reference in the "education policy" is definitely a problem—it makes it seem as if you're trying to say that the lawmakers are passing down rules from above, legislation telling teachers "Don't let your students have critical thinking!" That is certainly not the case. And the blunt way you worded it and stuck it in comes off as, at best, a strange non-sequitur, and at worst a mean-spirited jab at China (I'm not saying you're mean-spirited, just that the wording of that edit could come off as such to a reader.) Finally, the article itself seems to be based very much on random interviews and personal impressions. That doesn't make it un-reliable, but it does make it far from being a scholarly source like most of the ones I listed above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the source is shaky; after all, it is a letter backed by general impressions of the reporter with a few facts thrown in. The issue is not memorization, I think that IS an issue from the past. It is the emphasis on technical skills. Which is a policy issue. I'll check out your references though. Fred Talk 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede that there might be articles in Chinese Education and Society which might contain information regarding Chinese educational policy, but you don't cite any; you just wave at it. Is there any information in it that Chinese educational policy does not emphasize conformity? Fred Talk 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Brandenburg, Uwe; Zhu Jiani (2007). "Higher education in China in light of massification and demographic change: lessons to be learned for Germany". Centre for Higher Education Development does not seem to contain any information that addresses the questions raised by The New York Times article. Perhaps it could be used to support a content addition which addresses an increased commitment to mass education and the delivery of educational services to an aging Chinese population. Fred Talk 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Li Yao; Whalley, John; Zhang Shunming; Zhao Xiliang (2008). "The higher educational transformation of China and its global implications". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13849: "Reflecting China's commitment to continued high growth through quality upgrading and the production of ideas and intellectual property as set out in both the 10th (2001-2005) and 11th (2006-2010) five-year plans, this transformation focuses on major new resource commitments to tertiary education and also embodies significant changes in organizational form" from the summary, also does not address the questions raised by the Times article because it addresses only the desire for "production of ideas", not any policy which has a rational connection with an educational environment where students might be educated in a way which might produce an educated class capable of producing ideas, at least ideas other than patents. Fred Talk 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have simply thrown a list of references to Chinese education up without pointing out any information from a reliable source which contradicts or negates the information in the Times article. Fred Talk 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the whole articles, or just the abstracts? I'm pretty sure they both talk about trying to improve education quality (probably in sections pertaining to things like Project 211); plus, the Kirby article is entirely about education and critical thinking, and it seems you have not read it yet (admittedly, it's a bit hard to get access to). I've also seen Kirby speak and he makes essentially the same point. I apologize that the articles are long and it's been a while since I read them, so I don't know the exact locations of everything within them.

And in any case, that still doesn't change the fact that your edit came across as POV and was simply the wrong way to bring up an issue like this. Yes, you are right that education has the sort of problems you were mentioning, and you were right that they should be addressed in the article somewhere (with references such as Farrel & Grant discussing that problem and the Chinese interest in addressing it); but presenting it as if it's a black-and-white thing, a problem which exists at 100% of classrooms and is intentionally created by policy, is both oversimplified and wrong. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want to try to make points about policy, you should consider reading the actual education policy and higher education policy (those links are English translations). As you can see, nothing in those policies specifically says to squash critical thinking. Indeed, the only thing that might support the point you seem to be making is parts of Article 16 of the HE policy, which do mostly stress skills, but at the same time it doesn't say "don't encourage critical thinking":

"(2) undergraduate education should enable students to systematically master the basic theory and basic knowledge necessary for the respective discipline and specialty, master the basic skills, techniques and related know-how necessary for the respective specialty and acquire initial capability for the practical work and research work of the respective specialty;"

You are welcome to snoop around the Ministry of Education website, which contains a whole lot of materials (but it's not well-organized, so things are hard to find). For example, this summary of higher education illustrates how much they are concerned with improving teaching quality and teaching methods (which in turn reflects an interest in improving education quality, although I guess an argument could be made that they're really just interested in finding methods to cram even more knowledge into the duck without teaching critical thinking...but, in my humble opinion, that's not likely).

Also, in some ways (and I hinted at this above as well), the very effort government officials are putting forth to promote better education, particularly critical-thinking education, reflects both the existing problems and the education ministry's stance on them (i.e., it demonstrates that they don't want to perpetuate this problem, they want to solve it, they might just have always done the best jot—it's an issue of will vs. capacity, do they lack the will to improve education, or do they simply lack the capacity?). The "Re-education" article, which I have now added a link for above, contains quite a lot about this. The immediate impression you get at the beginning of the article is similar to the impression your newer article gives (that education in China has flaws), but really much of that article illustrates the government's recognition of the need to improve it—the specific example this article uses, for the most part, is the founding of the HSYLC program for high school students, which I can attest is still running (I know someone who taught there this summer). That article also contains a pretty direct quotation about this:

"Even as American educators seek to emulate Asian pedagogy — a test-centered ethos and a rigorous focus on math, science and engineering — Chinese educators are trying to blend a Western emphasis on critical thinking, versatility and leadership into their own traditions."

Just below that quote it also mentions suzhi jiaoyu, or "character education"/"all-around education". This is an important concept; if you read any Chinese articles about education you will encounter it all over the place (素质教育). Sometimes it is used to mean something that is not really the same as critical thinking (for example, improving someones' "moral character"), but often it does refer to critical thinking skills, which the government recognizes are essential if it wants to become an economic powerhouse that doesn't rely so much on exports (i.e., if they want to thrive in the consumer economy and information/services economy, rather than just in manufacturing). The very existence of such a term, and the amount it gets thrown around, is yet another bit of evidence that education is not just all about job skills. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I saw, I was expecting Tim to take care of it ;) It looks like there's been some other activity there, and its currently endorsed. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Nathan ^T 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello - what offense has the latest attempt to edit generated? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.144.40 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Already left a message at your talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See my latest - thanks.

So, there's no way to engage in a chat huh?

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean a real-time chat over IRC? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

favor? close it (withdrawn) per WP:WHATEVER Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed it. Although I think in the case of withdrawing your own AFD, it's acceptable to close it yourself (you just add {{subst:afd top}} and {{subst:afd bottom}}, remove the afd tag from the article, and add {{oldafdfull}} to the talk page). I've certainly withdrawn and closed several of my own AfDs before. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So, which name would you prefer? kwami (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure; I believe I commented in some of the earlier discussions (in Archive5 and Archive6 now) but then it all became too TL;DR for me to follow. My preferences I think were Yue Chinese or Yue (language family), but back then I think the whole discussion was also confounded by concern over the organization of the articles (it seems that back then they were a bit mixed up, whereas now there appears to be a better division, with all the typological/big stuff located in the Yue article and the dialect-specific stuff in the Standard Cantonese and related articles).

The problem with the current name (Cantonese (Yue)) is that it doesn't even state clearly what the article is about, and it doesn't clearly distinguish it from the article about the prestige dialect (currently called Cantonese). As I probably said in one of the other discussions, the term is parentheses is usually read as a disambiguator: i.e., in an article titled [[X (y)]], the interpretation is "this article is about something called X, falling under the category of y". It's not clear how "Yue" is a category that the article falls under in this sense, and it's certainly now clear how the article Cantonese doesn't also fit here. Along the same lines, to a reader just looking at the title "Cantonese (Yue)" and not seeing the content yet, it's not immediately clear that this article is going to be about the language family and not the specific variety.

If we must stick with "Cantonese", titles that would give both a clearer delineation between the two articles and a clearer identification of this article's topic would be Cantonese (language family)–Cantonese (dialect), or Cantonese (language)–Standard Cantonese; other options are Yue Chinese–Cantonese language, Yue Chinese–Standard Cantonese, etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I also prefer the longer name as clearer, but was thinking of the parenthetical name as a common alternate, and as a political compromise. True, though, that's not something we do with other language articles. kwami (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do let me know if you have any concerns about my copyedits. I am just trying to get the text to flow a little better; please feel free to revert any and all edits which you feel aren't a clear improvement. Best, --JN466 23:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I think your edits have been a major improvement! Thanks for taking the time to look at this, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodie. Just checking. :) JN466 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm involved and you're more experienced with this stuff, could you take a look at the history of Special Force Online and take any admin action necessary? Shubinator (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind for the moment; he's getting the message. Shubinator (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your question here, I would say yes to it. The discussion I was mentioning was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 26#WP:FILMRELEASE. Hope that clears it up. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just created Vietnamese numerals. Will expand a bit more later (I'm hungry), but might need some copyediting if possible. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks interesting, I'll take a look at it! I don't know much about Vietnamese so it'll be fun to read. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I am also unsure of the proper translation of ja:固有語 / zh:固有詞. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure either. I haven't ever seen it talked about in English-language articles, I guess because it's a pretty Sino-centric idea. I think your translation of "native Vietnamese words" is probably ok, that's the first thing that came to my mind too. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation from ZH is now 100% complete. Skipped the Yan Emperor stuff because I couldn't really put it into context on an English page. Plus, my Classical Chinese is still horrible. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the images File:Uyghur protest Berlin, July 2009 2.jpg and File:Uyghur protest Berlin, July 2009 3.jpg are up for deletion on Commons. This is because when you uploaded them, you said that you were sending a permission email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, but the email was never received. The images will be deleted after 15 days unless a valid permission is received. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I just looked at my e-mail and actually it looks like I did send an e-mail (and it was received) but the OTRS people weren't satisfied with it. The copyright holder said we're "free to use it", but I guess OTRS wanted to see the name of a license specifically. I've e-mailed the copyright holder again and asked her to send me an e-mail specifically saying CC (the license her other photos are released under), and once I receive that I'll send it on to OTRS. Since I don't foresee any problems (she was very cooperative before) I went ahead and removed the deletion tag. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't do that, I'm afraid; we have to keep track of the status of the images. There's a wait of at least 15 days before they're liable to be deleted, so there shouldn't be a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:BYOC Shanghai China reusable chopsticks green save trees.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I forgot I had ever uploaded that (must have been one of my first uploads). You're right about the copyvio; I've gone ahead and deleted it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag, I noticed you reverted the edits by the ip address on the Perry Meridian High School article. I was also going to revert the edits, but checked out the links provided and thought I would just try to add them in a more proper manner. Although I am not sure that it's correct, I put them as references for the subjects the ip editor tried to link to. I wasn't trying to undo your reverts, but in the process I did re-insert the links. DD2K (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't noticed there were two edits by the IP there. I don't have a problem with adding a link to the school newspaper's site (I don't think that's usually done, but I doubt it's specifically forbidden either), but there's not really any good reason to link to a youtube userpage so I removed that one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I didn't know that YouTube was not supposed to be linked to, although I've seen something like that mentioned before. In any case, thanks. DD2K (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did some communication happen over e-mail, or on another wiki, to warrant this user's unblock? So far, he has used his account pretty much entirely for self-promotional editing and multi-project spam, so I'm not sure what benefit there could be in unblocking him unless he's given you a clear statement of what he intends to do here. (If he has done so that's fine; I just wanted to ask.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the unblock-en-l mailing list. He is expected to be on his best behavior. Feel free to monitor his editing if you wish. Fred Talk 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag. Recently I've been trying to improve the article Economy of South Korea. I was originally working on it a couple months ago trying to clean up the heavily biased and poorly written introduction. Lately my edits continue to be reverted by user Softjuice, and just recently, user Alohahell. An excessive number of unrelated images are also in the article. I've tried to raise discussion on the discussion page, but instead get accused of vandalism. I'm not a heavy Wikipedia editor, I just stick to a few occasional topics I'm interested in and try to improve what I see that looks really poor. So perhaps I am wrong. I ask for help with you because you've worked on this article before, and it seems you've dealt with these two users before as well. So you probably know how to go about this better than I do. I also would like to note that two other former accounts (Tnaniua and Tankiona) have somewhat similar edit histories, and have both done similar reverts to this article, although they could just be entirely unrelated. Please let me know what you think, and what I should do. Anawrahta (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that they're both problem editors—I've been watching Alohahell because he uploads numerous copyright violations, and Softjuice because he seems to be a single-purpose account to boast about South Korea wherever he can. Both of them, and other accounts, make problems by flooding articles with unnecessary, decorative, showoff images.

That being said, technically you are all edit warring at this article and none of you should be continuing to revert. It's time that a discussion happens and, if you guys can't work a consensus out, you can invite other uninvolved editors to comment (WP:WikiProject Korea might have people who can help). As much as I don't like Alohahell's and Softjuice's disruptive editing, edit warring is still unacceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have stopped editing that article and I won't touch it again until something can be worked out. I will bring it up at WP:WikiProject Korea. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anawrahta (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Ucucha 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rjanag, I noticed that you warned Alohahell (talk · contribs)'s possible copyvio images, and I totally agree with the concern. My gut feeling tells me that most of images that he uploaded do not look like taken by him. Do you know how to nominate his images for deletion in a bundle case? --Caspian blue 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And his uploading of File:Ryugyong Hotel under construction on 26 August 2009.jpg looks very fishy, because according to his description on the image, A photo of the Ryugyong Hotel under construction during my last Pyongyang trip on 26th to 29th August 2009., the time matches the trip period of a South Korean Yonhap news team.[5] Moreover, Reuter also published a news with images regarding the construction of the North Korean hotel on 28 August 2009.[6]. I think Alohahell downloaded the image from Reuter's , and cropped and retouched with Photoshop program given that the very low resolution and unsharpness, etc. ---Caspian blue 04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. See here and here. even the construction crane in front of the building is at the same angle. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: A better version of File:World's largest department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg appeared in Chosun almost month before he claimed to have taken it. Do clouds Korea stand still for 3 weeks, and is a national sport to park the same cars in exactly the same spots every day just in case two people wanna take a picture from exactly the same angle? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Britishizing"? LMAO Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even realize that! Haha...some habits really are hard to break. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant the word, not the spelling!!!! ROFL Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Benlisquare likes this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

hahaha rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up - if an article does not pass at WP:FAC, the next peer review is supposed to wait two weeks after the close of the FAC, the idea being this gives time to address the issues which led to the article not passing at FAC. I wonder if an RfC would be better for establishing consensus on neutrality? A successful PR might only have one reviewer, but an RfC should attract many users. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Personally I don't care, but there was only one issue at FAC (brought up by only one POINTy opposer, who refused to continue discussing after the issue was addressed) so I didn't see any point sitting on my hands for two weeks doing nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

>> ?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm pleased to meet you. It has been great to see you working on the various Uyghur language-related articles, and I hope I will get to know you better. Secondly, I don't know if it is custom here on Wikipedia to give thanks, but I noticed you have awarded me a barnstar, so this is what I'm going to do: thank you, I'm just glad I'm able to contribute with something. -- Llonydd (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recently expanded the article. Please look over with your expert knowledge and make any corrections needed. How many words do you count? Would it qualify now with enough prose words to qualify as a resubmitted normal DYK (not Valentine)?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for re-verifying the DYK. Left a note on Template talk:Did you know that your suggestion of ALT1 is fine by me. If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know. Otherwise I'll assume it is on a normal track now. Thanks again for your expertise.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a name change to "English words first attested in Chaucer" is in order, or should it be left the way it is now?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like that title better than the current one—it's easier to tell what that's referring to—but if there's a renaming discussion going on somewhere I can take a look to see if I'm missing any potential issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No "issues" on this name change. User:Akhilleus was kind enough to suggest this at the end of this looooong thread. Sounds good to me, so IF everything looks O.K. to you - could you make the name change for me? Thanks!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you are always the final word.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article you created is not substantially different than the one that was deleted, so it cannot be used. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

还有。。。你知道吗 维基百科有中文版， 连吴语版都有。 即使你不能够用英语交流，你还可以去参加中文或者吴语维基百科。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

我的英语不好，所以用汉语回复您。

无论如何，谢谢您。对您投的反对票，我能理解。--ZHU Yeyi (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw you edited the page there. The subject was created by ZHU Yeyi who is the only other one who appears to be writing the page. I've gotten the page deleted here and at the Spanish Wikipedia, and it is being considered for deletion at the French Wikipedia. Perhaps you can list the page for AFD at zh?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't quite made up my mind where I sand on this...I'm leaning towards deleting all of them because of Yeyi's COI and because he hasn't supplied any good RS mentions, but I'm having a hard time gauging how notable this is, so I'm not sure yet. I have a few Chinese friends and I'm waiting form them to get online so I can ask them if they've ever heard of it...I know that doesn't count as an RS, but I have to admit it will influence my decision ;). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I know the policy is not about content of tables. Since this is a policy article, I am adding a few pointers of advice to the guideline. I plan to move it to a more general name, such as, wikipedia:tables.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you should probably start a discussion at the talk page before making a major change in the scope of the page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And I see you are still not using [[Help:edit summary|edit summaries}. This makes it difficult for people to work with you. Please use them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That happens both ways. Content changes on a page, then it gets moved to a more appropriate name.174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[7] (Seems to be some convergence in fields of interest between us. The former linguists-student keeps creeping up in me, even though I switched to art years ago... :P) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yes, linguistics can be quite addicting ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how you assume things. You're a very funny user.

I'm just removing stuff that doesn't have citation and is obviously an opinionated comment by a PC gamer that has a agenda against consoles. I suggest you pay more attention. Sourside21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourside21 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and so much for deleting this message without a response, am I right? Guess you were wrong, again... Sourside21

It's not my job to "pay attention", it's your job to provide a reason for reverting. That's what talkpages are for, that's what the edit summary box is for. Other editors should not have to read the article and its history to figure out what you're doing. This is a collaborative project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, I've added a summary of the lyrics at the beginning of the "Lyrics and meaning" section. I think having a broad overview of the "storyline" will help the reader get a better feel for how the text could acquire other meanings than the literal one. Please have a look. I've adjusted some of the following content in the section accordingly, and moved the sentence on the phrase having no grammatical subject. I think it works. :) --JN466 11:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing -- I've read/heard in several places that Cui Jian used to wear the the red blindfold when singing "A Piece of Red Cloth", rather than "Nothing to my Name"; specifically when performing at Tiannamen Square (e.g. [8], by Cui Jian himself, or [9]). Apart from Matusitz, none of the sources we cite seems all too definite on this point. I am wondering if Matusitz is wrong. --JN466 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I like your additions and copyedits, I agree that it makes things easier for the reader.

As for the red blindfold, I've had the same concern too... I think he's definitely known for wearing it during "A Piece of Red Cloth" (he even does in the music video), although I guess that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it for "Nothing to my Name" either. Other than Matusitz, this source also says it (there were two other footnotes in the article, but I just checked them and I must have put them in in error; they don't seem to confirm anything). I recently noticed another article by Matusitz, published in December 2009 in Asia Europe Journal (it appears to be more or less the same thing as the one I cite, but more professional and perhaps better peer-reviewed)...it makes no mention of this, which might support your guess that he made a mistake and some reviewer caught it. Anyway, as it's not crucial to the article, I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now unless some new information comes up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad you like the changes. :) I agree it is best to remove it. I'd seen the other source, but it didn't seem that definite on that point and left me with doubts, since Cui Jian himself is positive in TIME Magazine that he sang the other song with the bandana on at TS. So yes, he wore the bandana, and he sang Nothing to my name, like that source says, but probably not at the same time. :) We can keep the picture caption though, explaining that he sometimes performed with a red blindfold. We don't have to commit to saying which song he performed that way; but as he is depicted that way on the cover, we have a natural opportunity to mention that he sometimes performed like that. --JN466 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I apologize for the typo: "interchangeable" should of course have been "interchangeably." I thought you'd appreciate the replacement of blogs with printed sources, for instance, and I trust that you agree there was a need for copyedits; that wasn't a very nice edit summary you left me. Please don't take me for a drive-by tagger. Thank you again. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rjanag. If you have a moment, can you warn Jpatokal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an admin for his highly inappropriate slander including racist attack and WP:Harassment against me? At Joseon Dynasty and Emperor Gojong of the Korean Empire, a new user named Gavinhudson (talk · contribs) ‎inserted sources which include a commercial site that does not show anything about the book along with an unreliable source. After some discussion with the new user yesterday, the matter was well resolved between him and me.

However, the new user did not restore his edit to Joseon Dynasty and Jpatokal restored the new edit with an accusation against me of not assuming good faith. Another editor reverted his edit. The two editor did not seem to know about the discussion between me and Gavinhudson and Jpatokal reverted again (thus edit warred). Except the AGF accusation and a need for clarification about the content, I had no problem with Jpatokal's restoration. As Jpatokal opened a discussion at Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Life_expectancy, I civilly explained the situation and my stance. However, Jpatokal suddenly visited Gavinhudson with clearly ill-faith to slander me.[10] I consider his such inappropriate canvassing is not only a personal and racist attack (liberal dose of kimchi), and WP:Harassment. I've seen the user did the same thing elsewhere. So I think a strong admonishment from an admin would prevent him from repeating such ill behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update Jpatokal (talk · contribs) is currently blatantly harassing me by repeatedly reverting to include his racist attack and false accusation on the Cavinhudson's talk page. He also absurdly demanded me to apologize to him (for what?) and Gavinhudson. I already apologized Gavinhudson for being hard on his new edits, and I'm the one who should get apology from him for his vicious behavior. Since the user does not seem to desist his behavior and does not realize how wrong he is, your administrative intervention would be needed for this harassment. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd put this on Caspian blue's talk page, but he deletes anything I write there, so:

CB, I suspect you're not parsing the English correctly here. "Take X with a liberal dose of kimchi" is a pun on the English expression "take X with a grain of salt" (because, y'know, we're talking about Korea here). It's not a personal attack, much less a racist one. And I requested that you apologize to me and to Gavin for deleting my comment off his talk page, which is, IMHO, pretty darn rude to both of us. Jpatokal (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpatokal, please composure yourself and desist from bulling me with the bashing. You linked the past ANI thread to slander me to Gavin out of nowhere, and then you're excusing here with the implausible comment regarding "kimchi", Korean national food, but also frequently used for bashing Koreans. Your comment is like calling people from Latin America Banana republic. Apologize to me for your rude and vicious slandering and harassing of me relentlessly.--Caspian blue 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Jpatokal - racial slur and harassment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jpatokal (talk · contribs)'s disruptive personal attacks that require administrators' attention. Thank you. --Caspian blue 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

The current version of the guideline has be reverted. I hope you can help me gather consensus on the disputed versions of the guideline.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't ever don't do something like this again. If you were aware enough to say "shouldn't be reproduced anywhere" then surely you're aware enough that this is not fair-use. Every-bloody-thing published at Wikipedia gets the GFDL and CC-BY licenses, but the failures will get pinned to one single editor, namely you. I'm rather surprised Rjanag, we commented together at the FAC discussion on incorporation of PD/free text but now I see you (apparently) blatantly violating copyright protection. Is this a reaction to that previous discussion? Or am I missing something? Either way, there seems to be a misunderstanding that needs to be resolved. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wasn't really thinking. At first it seemed fine to me--after all, anyone at that page could get a free PDF of the article from me, another editor, or an interlibrary loan service--but then I realized that posting it in text is not the same format as a PDF would be and loses some of the attribution, as well as making it more likely for someone to reproduce the work elsewhere improperly (a PDF, on the other hand, is harder to reproduce). It certainly was not a POINT about the previous discussion (I don't even see the connection, the previous discussion was not in any way about copyright). Anyway, I self-reverted hours ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a connection between the discussions either, but I had to check (and I had to give the warning as a separate matter). I'm a new-ish member of the "copyright police" and it is a very not-fun job here, though I'm sure other editorx could point me to other stuff that's even more horrible. I'll buy into your "not thinking" explanation, since I've done that so many times myself! :) (Would be nice to see that FAC thing get resolved too). Franamax (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is always the WP:REX to get copies of good stuff that plausibly comply with fair-use since they are individual requests for a specific stated purpose, improving a free encyclopedia. Also, anytime I locate, read and reference a source concerning the RDs that seems to be behind a pay-barrier, I always make a note "(email me for a copy)" - in which response I can state "this is for your personal use only and not for general publication" which gets the job done but keeps the lawyers quiet. Not the wiki-lawyers, the real ones. Franamax (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and interlibrary loan services tend to have more or less the same note, which is what I started thinking when I realized that one-to-one e-mailing is probably different than mass disseminating on a talk page. Of course, I wish journals would all be open-access so that more people could make use of them, but in the long run everyone who wants a copy can still get it, they just need to jump through more hoops.

As for the FA discussion, it looks like no one has commented further for a week or so, and I too would like to see it get resolved...I'm thinking I'll just take the article that started it all to FAR, where people will be able to discuss a specific article practically rather than abstract ideas about the encyclopedia and FA project as a whole; the outcome of that discussion would, hopefully, provide a good precedent for later, more general discussions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you went through and added a 'section' parameter to various character templates. THis parameter doesn't seem to do anything (there's no equivalent on the underlying 'special chars' template) - what is it meant for? --Ludwigs2 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an equivalent on {{SpecialChars}} as of 2 hours ago. I made it so the template would make sense in places like Diglossia#Arabic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ok. one of us needs to update the docs, then. do you want to do it, or can you explain it to me well enough so that I can do it? because really, I still have no idea what it means. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my motion to close on grounds that you have now cited grounds for the FAR. Whatever happens, I wish you luck in pursuing the FAR. Its editors like you that help ensure that FAR standards are maintained, and for that I am grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag has changed the correct "athletic directors" to the incorrect "athletics directors." This is my first encounter with Rjanag. He may be British, in which case "athletics" is sometimes heard. In the United States (where I have been editing for nearly forty years) it is "athletic director." And the article title in Wikipedia is "Athletic director," so some other Wikipedia editor than Rjanag got it right. Google Search has the margin 10 to 1 in favor of "athletic" (2,560,000 to 263,000). It's equally lopsided in Google News (8,760 to 1,096). Elsewhere, Rjanag has removed my "leading American schools" -- which was a neutral, necessary, descriptive, definitive cultural shorthand -- in articles about the members of a body of, well, *leading* American schools. Again, it's a question of editorial or cultural "ear," as well as age and professional experience. "Leading schools" is an ancient term and locution, often emanating from headmasters' conferences (especially in the UK), but also often encountered in writing about schools, education, education history, in school directories, in journalism, in descriptions of school associations, and so forth. If eight of the most famous prep schools in the United States compose what Andover's "The Phillipian" has characterized as a "mirror of the Ivy League," then the innocuous phrase "group of leading American schools" is not only permissible, it is necessary, a definer, a describer, a clarifier. Rjanag may work tirelessly in Wikipedia, clearing out the undergrowth. But he doesn't know everything about everything, and in some areas he should try to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldene (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me in the third person, it's both condescending and obnoxious. I will be willing to engage in rational discussion with you once you are willing to do the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would excuse the intrusion on your user page, Rjanag, I agree with you and your removal of peacock terms. And now I will take this to the article talk pages, where Micheldene should have brought his/her condescending statements in the first place. Cheers, --BaronLarf 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your very first message to me, a person unknown to you, was titled "Warring" (a concept I'd never heard of) and was itself worse than condescending. It was reactionary, bullying, preremptory and, given your howler about "athletic director," wrong. You demanded to know why I was everywhere undoing your work. I don't know about "undoing." I don't "undo" individual Wikipedia contributors. You were wrong about "athletic director" and you're wrong about the conventional, formulaic, innocuous, and often necessary phrase "leading schools." When you begin to understand that idiomatic fact, I'll change my present opinion that you're incredibly thin-skinned about editorial disagreement. (Incidentally, there isn't enough good writing in Wikipedia for you to be chasing off the professional writers you accidentally attract.) Now, let's start over, beginning with your apology for the bullying tone of that initial message to me.Micheldene (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Others are watching Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm not really in the mood for arguing over "how mean" various messages were or comparing our credentials, so let's please just focus on the content issues at hand. Another editor has already commented at Talk:Eight Schools Association and at Talk:Choate Rosemary Hall#WP:PEACOCK saying that he thinks "leading" is not necessary, so why not continue the discussion there? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

During all my time as a patroller I have never encountered the tradition that warnings are only given "per spurt of vandalism". Could I please get an elaboration about what you are trying to achieve here? Also the account is clearly a vandalism-only account, I fail to see the constructiveness in your attempt at prolonging the existence of this account on Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

During all my time, users have been given a chance to respond to warnings--i.e., to hear them and stop their vandalism. Unless the vandalism is so bad that it warrants a 4im, there's no point giving a user 3 or 4 warnings before he's had a chance to see the first one. I agree that this account is a useless account and will probably never do anything constructive, but we should still be fair when dishing out warnings. Trampling people under our heel, even if they're useless people, doesn't always reflect well on the project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your last part when it comes to dedicated vandals I can only say I disagree wholeheartedly. But let us leave it at that and hope this user has learned their lesson and hopefully abandoned the account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is being discussed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it just as you were sending this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Get a grip man. My edit was perfectly proper. I don't have to discuss edits with you; nobody died and made you head of the wikipedia. The edit was not even controversial except in your head.

If you bother to read WP:LEAD guideline this is the style that leads are supposed to follow wherever possible.

In fact, it's unbelievably clear policy, WP:NAD says (and I did not write this bit):

"However, sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to", with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine."

It's all there, you just haven't read it.- Wolfkeeper 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was so poorly considered, you accidentally removed the most important part of the the article subject: the fact that it refers to suburbs in France. After your edit, it could have been misread as being about any place.

And overall I do not believe your edits are an improvement. This article is not only about the suburbs, there is also information on the word itself. Your rewrite would be more appropriate in an article titled Suburbs in France or something like that. If you believe the article's scope should be changed and the article should be moved, you can start a discussion on the talk page to suggest it, but you shouldn't just go around changing articles to conform to your narrow view of what Wikipedia should be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Except the word is not restricted to outskirts in France, wiktionary:Banlieue nor did your revert make the article say that; and so that was not why you reverted the edit anyway.- Wolfkeeper 05:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, it refers almost exclusively to suburbs of French cities. The wiktionary page has no examples of other usages, and besides it's only a wiktionary page, it's not a reliable source on the matter. Removing mention of French from the first paragraph is not at all constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph said that it was a word in the French language, NOT that it only applied to French cities! And after my edit; the article still said the same thing! This is simply you edit warring, pure and simple. This is completely unacceptable. You do not have a leg to stand on.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know, comments in edit summaries are seen as more problematic than comments in text because they are part of the server logs and can only be removed by WP:OVERSIGHT. This is not always appreciated, so you're not the first to be bitten by this (as I was myself). Guy (Help!) 10:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rjanag, if wiki should became a valuable resource of proved information you should also let research work have done. Who knows, that all other quoted sources are verified, if you don't let have them checked by someone. I am tired of adding my corrections to the article again and again. I cannot do more, then adding valuable sources and research. Please give me a concrete advice, proved by academics, that adding the 2 footnotes and the one sentence is incorrect. Since you mentioned my both IP addresses, yes, I am working not always on the same place, sorry, and I also do not have time for endless discussions in this so called "Talk Page". Do you really want to protect the Entropa entry from verified sources? Then I must say, I am very sorry for wiki and you should have let checked all the sources by a wiki watch man to verify all entries including footnotes. Thank you 85.127.163.176 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not "let research work be done"—Wikipedia does not accept original research. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are holding back and censoring verified sources on Wiki entries. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been given ample opportunity to engage in discussion with other editors, but instead you are continuing to edit war when numerous editors disagree with your changes. If you want something to be added, start a discussion at the talk page and make your suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that I made formal mistakes in communication, but I did not have time to check all the rules of wiki how to make entries and communicate them. I am very sorry for this, since I am a normal user and no computer freak. I cannot do more then apologize. And since all this procedure was already cosuming too much time, I think I have to give up. Thank you for your kind help and support. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take a "computer freak" to know how to talk to people. You were given several warnings, and didn't bother to "apologize" until the page was protected. If I hadn't protected it, I imagine you would still be edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not think, that I have to apologize, because my intention was good, but just I did not understand all the warnings. And I did apologize before above. Now I really cannot follow this anymore, I have also other things to do. Thank you. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I am not going to lead a public talk to someone about this anymore. It was just, that I did not have time to read carefully the instructions on how to react on the history of an article. I am sorry, but what can I do, now it's too late. And I think, I also don't know now how to use a discussion section on Wiki and doing things wrong and posting things wrong. Have a good day!85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All the explanation of how to use a discussion section is available in the tutorial. You keep saying you don't have time to participate here anymore and that you need to do other things, but you seem to have tme to keep leaving me messages and looking at my talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If a user expanded a new article (still within it's first five days) from a stub not eligible for DYK due to it's length, can that author who has the overwhelming bulk of the edits list himself as that article's author when nominating it for DYK even if he did not create that page?--Supertouch (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to list yourself as |expander=. But it doesn't really matter, the credits given out are all the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Supertouch (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For this. I never got around to updating that number, so it's good that you stepped in. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what is going on there? You say have protected the article due to a content dispute, and yet you have only semi-protected it. Essentially, whether intentionally or not, you have used your adminship to take sides in the content dispute (by preventing only the anonymous editor from editing). This is the reason that {{pp-dispute}} doesn't work on semi-protected articles, I believe. In addition, you yourself seem to be one of the ones engaged in the content dispute, so it appears you shouldn't have been acting as an administrator there anyway. Dominic·t 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one anonymous editor warring against at least three established editors; messages were left with him but he never responded, and apparently never looked at them, until after the protection (see just a couple sections above). Attempts to have a discussion were made and failed. Since he was editing from multiple IPs there was no point in blocking, so the next thing to do was semi-protect (which had the same result--keeping the one user from continuing his edit warring behavior). In retrospect I suppose I could have taken it to AN3, but the end result would have been exactly the same. And I don't see the protection having caused any problems—in the discussion above, the unregistered user didn't complain about abuse or anything (other than dropping the usual "censorship" card that people throw around so lightly it's meaningless), and in fact he admitted fault and apologized for his poor communication skills. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have mail. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, in the interests of our mutual understanding of what is appropriate/inappropriate, and of defending myself against your characterization in the edit summary, I'm a little confused about your characterization of my summary as "jabs" and of JB50000 as defenseless. While the infractions outlined in that RfE were part of the block, they were not the whole of the block, and I suppose because of the technicality that official warnings were required, the real last straw was for offenses that are not mentioned at the RfC, the stealth canvassing/campaigning and the fact (not to mention temerity) that he would go so far as to ask the administrator who was telling him that he wasn't being tag-teamed against that the admin join him in tag-teaming against others. Is it not appropriate to note the further step taken that was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Would you clarify what parts of that post were these plural jabs, as opposed to a neutral summary? Respectfully, it seems like a jab at me, to suggest that my brief summary of the blockable offense of a habitual offender (again, not a recap of the whole thing, but an acknowledgement of what wasn't already a part of the RfE) was an attack on a defenseless person. As I merely encapsulated the posts at his talk page in the official block explanation, the defense would be to allege that they are untrue or unfair, and the block unwarranted, not my brief acknowledgement of them in the note here. My only characterizations that did not appear in the block itself were my positive observations of the admin (exceptional amount of goodwill and patience; helpfully).

Finally, if my wording was too much, might it not be that yours is too little?

I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks for your help with my understanding of these matters, Abrazame (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You were a party in the dispute, so you really shouldn't be jumping in to leave closing remarks after the other user is blocked. And your remark was definitely not neutrally worded; its tone in general was one of criticizing JB and saying "I told you so", with asides like "of course". There's no need for that; it just makes it look like you're trying to get the last word. A link to Kingpin's block, which describes the e-mail issue, is plenty. The rest of the material is all available in the discussion, and there's no need for you to enshrine your own version of it at the top. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, there is nothing about the final impetus for the block in the discussion at the RfE, since it took place in a private e-mail sent after the most recent post therein. That material is entirely limited to the block post at the user's talk page. We generally tell people what salient bit of info we're linking to elsewhere

You are absolutely right that my "of course" goes beyond neutral. My intention was to briefly summarize the actual final impetus for the block, but it should have been briefer and tighter. Given my "of course" I concede it's understandable that "I told you so" could be inferred. I still think "jabs" and "defenseless" are hyperbolic, but that's your prerogative.

I'm not going to push this further here or take it up elsewhere or anything; I accept your judgement here; but for my understanding of this and future issues, is there a guideline you could point me to that states you're not supposed to note what the actual final impetus for a block was at an RfE in instances like this one where that final impetus is not enumerated among the Requests? Something like "The user was blocked for 1 week for infractions enumerated herein as well as X (in this case stealth canvassing/campaigning) as noted here (with a link to the block)"? To not do so is to imply that the entirety of the user's blockable offense is covered at the RfE, and could present a misleading picture of how to successfully build a case for enforcement. If it's inappropriate for the head of the section, is it appropriate at the foot of the section?

Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, just a little suggested tweak, I've noticed the string {{-}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line--> appears right below the rest of the output, so that a lot of people ignore it and post below the string. Any chance you could leave some whitespace between the string and the rest of the output? That way I wouldn't have to keep moving the string to the right place :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss this post? Or are you still thinking about your reply? :) Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I did add a space, just must have forgotten to reply :S . Anyway, I checked some noms later and it looks like it's at least correctly adding the space...I guess it remains to be seen if that will cause people to correctly post above it ;). Is this what you had in mind? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I was thinking of two or three spaces. Just one could easily be missed I think, as if you don't look carefully you might think it's just another comment. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Refdesk Barnstar Your answer was exactly what I needed; you deserve this! DRosenbach (Talk

Hello. Just per your warning on my talk page, I wasn't trying to "spin" anything related to my editing - as I've noted, I stopped editing on the article once I hit my third reversion. I haven't tried to defend my edits or reversions (simply saying "I want less information, he wants more"). I don't want to be a WP:DICK here, but to say you'll give me a warning instead of a block, when I've only made five edits on the article since June of last year (all of which were today - three of which were reversions and hence within 3RR) seems a bit over zealous. As I said on WP:ANI, Cliché's attitude was the reason I brought it there, the 3RR/article issues were very much a side point. Don't feel like you have to reply, just wanted to say it. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:3RR, specifically the clause "3RR is not an entitlement". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Journal no longer exists in Venezuela, therefore the Correo del Orinoco International is the only English-language newspaper in Venezuela and the first created during the Chavez administration and the XXIst Century. This is not a lie. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evagolinger1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just "spin" (aka propaganda), and that is not what your edit added ... your edit said it was the "first" (the same claptrap reported by the highly accurate Venezuelanalysis.com). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mz. Golinger, I never commented or took any interest in the content dispute here and I don't have an opinion on the matter. I was only warning you against inappropriate editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

the problem I had a few weeks ago surfaces repeatedly. the person uses a changing IP and slaps warning-templates around, bite newcomers from the get go. Now s/he reports another user at ANI, whining about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-IP_bias. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Apparently this editor has this thing about wanting to remain an anon-IP, according to the talk page. I suspect it is so that he or she can avoid being disciplined for his or her actions. The sad thing is that this editor has done a fair amount of useful stuff on new pages and the like, but tends to throw warning tags around like a new football referee out to let everyone know he's on the field. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The warnings were improperly placed by the troublesome anon-IP editor, who also refuses to communicate directly about the issue - he or she just throws warning tags around, then goes running off to ANI. I did a strikethrough instead of a complete deletion just to make it obvious what I had done. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag. I cut and pasted and then modified. I find the dyk formating confusing, to say the least. Did I mess up? Ceoil ^sláinte 08:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try that next time. I was only just discussing mark up with another user yesterday; it beats the hell out of me. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your careful copyedits. You probably put Adam Scriveyn to shame. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I missed out on the renaming of the manuscript words-article (wasn't it a DYK article weeks ago already?), but that was a good move. You started that, right? Well done, it's a much better title. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, someone else renamed the article; I mostly just did little edits with the article here and there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Listen, while I have your ear (and you have your magic powers), can you please have a look at Dogo Argentino? Rohnjones protected it, another editor made some (necessary) edits, but in the process removed that "pp-semi-vandalism" code (by accident, no doubt). I don't know if I can correct that or how I should do that--your help is much appreciated. Signing off, Drmies (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Got it, I think...is this what you needed? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. Could I simply have cut and pasted that? I saw a non-admin do that a week or so ago, and next thing you know black cars pulled up in front of her house (or so I'm told). Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

<--I was hoping to give you a present (by removing a cn-tag and replacing with a cite) but was unable to do so. Instead, I had to settle for this. I noticed there are two different citation formats, and I stuck with the templates I always use--I hope that's OK with you, and the article isn't consistent anyway. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It was just a typo mistake.Tintor2 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to check. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, do you remember last weekend when vandal/xbox fanboy Falcon9x5 came in the Ferrari Challenge (video game) article i was editing, nobody edited it since 2008 when i came up to clean it up, to add infos and then Falcon9x5 popped in the same day and removed my informations from the article starting an edit war (he did it before coming in articles i edit) then reporting me to the administrators noticeboard trying to get a ban on me so he could follow his detestable agenda. now i caught him adding negative and false claims on a playstation 3 title then removing negative but true facts in another article. this editor is known for, shorts, insignificant edits, he mostly removes informations added by other editors using his personal interpretation of WP:GAMECRUSH and following an obvious agenda. i already saw him following my contributions and reverting my edits in articles. basically he promotes the xbox360 games and gives negative view to playstation 3 games which is the rival console. for example in the Final Fantasy XIII article, he first added a 576p native resolution to the playstation 3 version -basically this means the ps3 version does not support HD 720p but a much lower quality SD 576p- here [11]. then an other editor corrected this false claim, adding xbox360 to the 576p resolution, which is a known and sourced fact. hence the ps3 version was 720p and xbox360 was 576p. so Falcon9x5 came back and removed the resolution infos -while it was him who added it in the first place as a negative aspect of the ps3 version- just because the truth was the ps3 version had actually a better quality, ps3 was 720p and xbox was 576p, then he removed the native resolution!! as simple as that, this is blatant vandalism. he does this often but now i caught him the hand in the honey pot, removing content like this is blatant vandalism, he is a vandal and an xbox360 fanboy indeed (admitedly he don't own a ps3 - but he edits ps3 article with negative infos...). (576 w/source; +eg review) - (rm unsourced 576p 360; asia release nn on en wiki; chinese trad release not for lead). thanks for holding an eye on this "editor". Cliché Online (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I cannot make any judgments about editing if you do not provide diffs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
2. According to Falcon9x5's userpage, he works for Sony. So I'm not sure I understand your rationale for assuming he's anti-PlayStation.
3. I have already cautioned you against making erroneous accusations of vandalism. Again, please read What vandalism is not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've looked more closely, I see that, first of all, the edits you're "reporting" happened 4 or 5 days ago, so I don't see why you're suddenly bringing this up now; it is not really appropriate of you to leave harshly-worded "warnings" many days after the edit happened. Secondly, judging by later edits and by the discussion on your talk page, he was not removing content, he was actually adding a source to previously unsourced content; the current version of the article makes it quite clear the the Xbox version is the one with 576p resolution. No vandalism occurred, and I don't swee what you're getting so worked up about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the image file change. I hadn't realized that we couldn't use them. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminded, I myself forgot how long I have been here :D--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please assist with User talk:Alefbe#Alefbe Deletions without discussions from bunch of articles
Thanks Intothefire (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm uninvolved. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When you move a page, like you did at IGN, please make sure you also move the talk page. That's often difficult, because you can't automatically delete a talk page using Special:MovePage when moving a page. I fixed it now; I'm sure you'll be able to do it yourself next time. :) Ucucha 02:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Thanks for the pointer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful input, at page Talk:No worries. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries! :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. Please desist from this coordinated wikihounding. I edit Robert May and the next edit is a vist from you - you have never edited the page AFAIK before. 2 days later your confederate SlimVirgin comes to attack the John Polkinghorne page, which she has never edited before, removing much of the information about his scientific career. When I object, you are immediately on the talk page of an article AFAIK you have never edited supporting Slim and trashing me. This is blatant hounding and COI editing. Please stop. NBeale (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(archived early)

...it appears that you also have at least one co-nom, if desired. Probably a few others that would volunteer for that too (if you want names, e-mail me!) I guess there's no better time to go through it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks ... draft responses for comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Truly, thanks ... working on the finalities as we speak type (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

..and thanks for the truly kind words in the nom. Much appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I remove this response? I truly feel he's going down some kind of WP:SOAP path, but I'm WP:AGFing and responding politely ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably fine...although if he keeps up you're right that it's probably best just to let him have the last word. It should be clear to the crats that he's harping over a really minor thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about using clinical terms. However, it seems like some characterization is in order. 'Sociopathic' has a meaning outside of a professional or clinical context and it's good English to use the word in that way. As a native speaker myself, Chigurh's lack of conscience seems to open the possibility of describing him that way accurately. (I wouldn't base anything on the book either way.) Perhaps it would be useful to propose an alternative. Sometimes the facts don't speak for themselves so we use summaries / characterizations. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I saw the film (and I've never read the book), but I imagine there must be some scene, such as the one where Tommy Lee Jones is explaining who Chigurh is, where some character makes some kind of statement about him. If that could be dug up, it could be used in the article and attributed to that character rather than to us (e.g., "Chigurh is described as a 'sociopath' by the sheriff"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice but it seems that a summary is allowed. We don't have a problem saying many summary things about him (he's a man, a murderer, relentless, an embodiment of evil, etc.). I'm wondering if the line you're drawing isn't a bit artificial. 'Sociopathic' is a word in English that we should feel free to use correctly like any other. In fact, think of it this way: is there any evidence that he's not sociopathic? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider this section to be even relevant to the main topic? I interpret this as someone trying to spread the heated dispute argument onto another article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in July 2009 you moved Uyghur captives in Guantanamo to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo. You didn't initiate a discussion of this move prior to the move. Your only explanation for your move was in your edit summary, where you asserted the previous title lapsed from WP:NPOV. I assume this was a good faith mistake, but, as I tried to explain at the requested moves page, it is actually the use of the term "detainee" that lapses from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale, and therefore the request seems to have been declined. You are welcome to paste the discussion into the article talk page and continue discussion there. (never mind, Anthony Appleyard has done that.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• You asked: "As a side note, if the current naming is so horrible, I'm confused as to why it took you 8 months to bring it up. It's not as if you've been on a Wikibreak that whole time." You have tens of thousands of edits under your belt, and have started dozen of articles. I am prolific too. I have over twice as many edits under my belt, I have edited tens of thousands of articles, and had started close to two thousand articles. When I had edited fewer articles my watchlist remained a useful tool for noticing things like controversial name changes. But, my watchlist now has over ten thousand articles on it, and it takes longer to check my watchlist than I can devote to the wikipedia.

• You told those participating in the discussion over restoring the name Uyghur captives in Guantanamo that I had abandoned the discussion -- a frankly maddening suggestion. I saw your comment that told me it was my responsibility to relist the suggestion. I showed you the courtesy of leaving you a heads-up when I listed the renaming on the uncontroversial requests section, and I am going to assume it simply didn't occur to you to show me the same courtesy as I showed you, and give me a heads-up.

• While immediately above you simply say you disagree with me, in the actual discussion you repeatedly assert I am "pushing a POV". Can we agree to reserve this phrase for genuine vandals and indisputable bad-faith contributors, and not use it for other good-faith contributors? Geo Swan (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• In response to your second point: I gave you a heads-up. It's not my fault you ignored my comment for over 2 days after that.
• In response to your second comment: no, POV is not the same as vandalism, and editors who are not vandalism can still push POV. That doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith.. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Please check again. Your talkback directed me to this comment that told me it was my responsibility to reopen the discussion in the disputed section.
2. I don't know anyone who would say that holding a point of view makes one a vandal. I would certainly never say that. Good faith contributors innocently insert bias into article space, without realizing it, all the time. Bad faith contributors know they hold a biased POV, don't care that inserting their personal point of view is against policy, and knowingly try to insert that biased point of view into article space, through subterfuge, or heedless, bull-headed, dogged persistence, or through sockpuppetry. Please spend thirty second looking at a search of Pushing a POV in the wikipedia name space. Every place where the phrase is used that I looked at it was used to describe some form of vandalism and bad faith. I am sure you will find the same thing. Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 02:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

see talk page for South Korea Kingj123 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

see what I put on talk page. I have already read the discussion in the past, actually if you have read it at all I was the participant of the discussion. Thanks. --Kingj123 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, READ THE ARCHIVE, the new post I have just made is for new people like you.--Kingj123 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

well I feel the same. --Kingj123 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this is meant in a derogatory fashion? --194.81.33.9 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the person who said it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that you can read Japanese. Any chance you could review the "Perverted Criminal" nom at DYK suggestions? Gatoclass (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's Chinese that I read :) but I can decipher enough of the Japanese to verify that this Japanese source verifies the hook fact. What I can't do, though, is tell if it's a reliable source or not (or even what kind of source it is at all); I think I'll need to find a fluent Japanese reader for that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that. I installed a package in my vector.js that doesn't work well with Chrome (my browser) and I think that's what prompted that error. I've never seen that happen before.UBER ^(talk) 06:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

see talk page--Kingj123 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup! I've worked hard for years to make this article better, your edit was spot on, something I had not thought of and am surprised I didn't. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I might be biased here, I'm seeking your input: look at the edit history if White South African and tell me whether or not words like "spurious" are NPOV. I just gave a 3RR to [12] to Rgherbert (talk · contribs), but don't want to revert again. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You should honestly just delete it. It seems that ZHU Yeyi is using multiple accounts to try to sway the discussion at this point and the French Wikipedia user Yug has no idea what he is talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking of doing that too...plus it seems that no one is interested in talking about the actual issue, people are just saying "delete it, it's in your userspace!" rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend:

How to complain? 如何投诉？Comment porter plainte?

M. Ryulong systematically attacked me.

Today, he even thinks that an IP China IP and Europe are my two Sockpuppets. Thank you. --ZHU Yeyi (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

请教您，怎样投诉。投诉人身攻击 personal attack。 How to complain? Please. 如何投诉？Comment porter plainte? 谢谢。 --ZHU Yeyi (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Wikiquette alerts. 可是你一定要提供一些diffs，而且小心不要写得太多，要不然别人不理。 rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. regards, -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel responsible for bringing the invalidity of the sentence element page to your attention. It needs to go somewhere besides null or an unattainable place on someone's hard drive. I've been making amateur steps at citing sources in an attempt of saving that page. Please bear with me. I've been using other Wikipedia pages as source citing examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.202.134 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. Kingj123 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

... uhm ok. See talk page.--Kingj123 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a little late but thanks for your happy birthday message on my talk page. It was really nice of you. --Patrice58 (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I enter Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation?? Hoising (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it does not appear to be widely used on Wikipedia, it is not currently supported in {{zh}}. You can enter it using {{zh-full}} instead. It would look something like this:

{{zh-full
 | {{zh-chinese|你好}}
 | {{zh-hkgov|<romanization here>}}
}}

rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete this person's edit request? Celestra (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Was a rollback accident. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Too bad. It's a tough edit request and I was hoping it had gone away for a reason. :) Celestra (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason? As far as I can see, their only function is to clutter up the suggestions page. Ucucha 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was still on my talk page, but it looks like the discussion of this is now at User talk:Rjanag/Archive8#Suggested NewDYKnom tweak. Basically, Gatoclass suggested that it might help keep people from putting comments below the {{-}}, which creates a bunch of unnecessary whitespace and lengthens the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So you create unnecessary whitespace and lengthen the page to prevent people from creating unnecessary whitespace and lengthening the page? :-) I just went through T:TDYK and it seems that this is working as intended, as there is no longer anyone writing below the {{-}}s. Good idea. It might be better to have the new lines appear only when there is in fact a {{-}}, though. Ucucha 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I think that is what I had wanted to do but it looks like it didn't work like I had wanted. It should have it fixed by now; here is a test run and it seems to be only leaving the whitespace when the image is included. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Ucucha 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Talk:Linguistics: That article has been semi-protected for almost a year (May 2009). Perhaps we could try unprotecting it? Unless Supriyya is still being a problem elsewhere...

Regarding notdict, the discussion isn't going well. I'll try my hardest to ignore it until next week, unless you advise otherwise...

Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping. Any thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello-

I've edited most of the viral video page now. I was working on it this morning when I realized that there are two glaring issues that need to be addressed. One is the "History" section. In it there are two consecutive paragraphs that repeat the same information, mainly about the "Dancing Baby" video. The third sentence of the second paragraph also contains the same info, namely that early viral videos were spread by email, since YouTube etc didn't yet exist. The only new info in the second paragraph refers to "Tunak Tunak Tun" and "All your base are belong to us" - two sentences.

There's also another problem, which is that there are ten (10) examples of viral videos in the lead. It's way too much for a lead. There are more examples of viral videos in the lead than in the whole article. It not only weighs the lead down with too much information but doesn't read well.

This is my suggestion. Since the lead has several examples of early viral videos, why not not pare it down to three or four good examples of viral vids (both early and later ones), and use the rest to fill out the "early history" section? It seems like the perfect answer to both problems. The excess info in the lead is exactly what the early history section needs.

Also, some of the info from the first paragraph of the history should be re-worked into the "early history" section. Why not make the first paragraph more of a brief, historical overview and save the information regarding early videos for the early history section?

I was going to do this edit but it's quite extensive, and I would need your help. I don't know enough about the videos mentioned in the lead to judge which should be moved into the early history section and which should remain where they are. I think you'd be better at judging that, since you have a better working knowledge of the subject.

I think what I'm going to do is start by integrating the two paragraphs in the history. I may have to temporarily delete the "early history" subcategory, because there will only be two sentences left once the redundant info is deleted, but I can re-create it as soon as you let me know which ones you think should be used in the early history. I'm going to copy them out and can re-insert them when I have the rest of the information that I need.

Please let me know what you think about all of this. :)

Best-

Viralvidkid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

That all sounds good to me. To be honest, I don't know a lot about the topic, I just stumbled across the page one day and, like you, noticed that it needs a lot of cleanup. Mostly, though, I just watch it and revert people who try to add links to their own youtube videos and stuff; I haven't done much substantive editing to the page. It used to have a lengthy list of videos that it called "notable" but which was mostly just personal opinion, didn't have any sources; that list has since been moved to the article and to Talk:Viral_video#Notable_videos_section (User:Politizer is my old username).

As for trimming examples from the first paragraph, I would suggest trying to dig up some reliable sources that discuss the viral video phenomenon in an academic way, and limit the examples to videos that these sources discuss. Once upon a time that paragraph probably was just 3 or 4 examples, but the problem is people show up wanting to add some video that they like, so the list has bloated over the years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonable in deleting what I have written, when it is obviously relevant and well-referenced. You are engaging in edit wars. No me, since I have re-written substantially. You delete without giving good reasons. You can edit to improve it if you wish.

Yewhock (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the article-talkpage. You might still have a chance to talk your way out of this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable in ignoring the obvious discussion, insisting in edit-warring without reading other editors' messages, insisting on believing that totally irrelevant stuff should have a large section in the article, insisting on inserting borderline copyvio, and in general having absolutely no understanding of what this article is about. Sorry, but you lack the social and intellectual competence to be a constructive contributor to this project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you to check some of the Tibetan romanizations at 2010 Yushu earthquake? Some of them are awkwardly written in pinyin... Colipon+(Talk) 15:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jungle music: the d00d who posted on my talk page gave me permission to delete the spam links, because they're spam and commercial. Tempmusic (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting my edits without a friking reason or you will be reported to administrators Tempmusic (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave "friking reasons", perhaps you should read them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but your edit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) is an outright fabrication that is a direct attack on my reputation and appears to have been deliberately done to discredit me. I request that you remove this and show the good manners to apologize. Handicapper (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A fabrication of what? rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, I currently have an article on a Sparks album at FAC. Reflecting on the nomination, it's occurred to me that the article doesn't have an audio sample yet. Could you tell me how I go about creating one? Also, if you'd like to review the article, the FAC page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman/archive1. Cheers, --JN466 10:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen,

Do you have Audacity? If not, you can download it for free (audacity.sourceforge.net/) and use it to open an audio file and chop out a small piece of it. From there, you just save that piece as a .ogg file (I believe there's some trick you need to do to make that option appear in the File menu of Audacity...don't remember exactly what it was, but should be in Audacity's Help files).

For an example of what the NFUR and everything would look like, you can check out the audio file used at Nothing to My Name.

Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rjanag, that's great. I'll get onto that. :) --JN466 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I got it to work; thanks again. --JN466 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thank you for keeping an eye on the Eva Peron article and keeping out the nonsense people put in there. I had suggested we lock the article because the vandalism of that article is often offensively sexually explicit. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you could comment here if it is still open for comment. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, trying to avoid an edit war here, let's figure this out.  :)

I agree that the suicide isn't what makes it violence. Bullying is considered violence even if the bullying isn't physical. To quote from the Wikipedia article on violence... "Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other" I believe that the inclusion of the child is therefore correct. I do think that this is a somewhat less clearcut case than the other reasoning, though. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.  :) --Joe Decker (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It looks like we just have different ideas of what constitutes "violence". I'll leave it be. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In your last revert, you wrote, "rv: the point is, HHG redirects here, so someone typing that while looking for High Harmonic Generation might end up here instead". I agree with what you wrote but, unfortunately, that is not what the {{dablink}} text says. It actually says:

This article is about the franchise. Several terms redirect here; see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation), Hitchhiker's Guide (disambiguation) and High Harmonic Generation.

And High Harmonic Generation does not redirect here. In fact, none of the three pages listed redirects here. So what the {{dablink}} text says is wrong, and so misleading. You did not like my solution to this problem; do you have a solution? (Please respond here or on the article's Talk page.) HairyWombat (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The dablink doesn't say that those terms redirect here. (If it did, there would be no point linking them.) What it says is, essentially, "several terms redirect here; these other things might be what you were actually looking for when you got redirected here." rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I have incorporated it into the article. (If I was confused then others also would have been.) HairyWombat (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hi,

i'm trying to change the profile pic of leehom wang as the current one is way outdated. I have a pic that was taken by ourhome china and posted on their website. How do i upload it?

I have already explained this to you multiple times at your talkpage and at Talk:Leehom Wang. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Prashant Jain. I am a new member to Wikipedia. I am a great sport lover and wish to share my part of information on Wikipedia. I have provided some information with one external link, but it seems like due to some mistake, my link has been deleted. With reference to "My Contribution" i came to know that you have removed my link.

I read and tried to follow all the link policy guidelines provided by Wikipedia, but wondering why my link has been removed, would be great if you can guide me on the same.

Looking forward for your guidance and advice on link policy.

Best Regards,

Prahsant Jain

Um, no, you didn't provide an external link, what you provided was some poorly written mumbo-jumbo about how badminton is "the most popular sport in the world". Please see Wikipedia's guideline on neutral point of view, and review guidelines about good writing (such as WP:PEACOCK). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your valuable suggestion, i will read the guidelines suggested by you and will write content accordingly.

Best Regards,

Prashant Jain

Thanks for your help a few days Rjanag; unfortunately, the provider of the email address I used is having some technical difficulties and I have no idea how long it's going to take before I can access those emails again (2 hours? 2 days?). I have now changed my email address here on WP to a more reliable and up-to-date address anyway; it's my username (including the numbers) at gmail.com. If it's easy, would you mind posting them over again? If it's not, don't worry, I'll wait it out, but I thought I might as well ask. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the reverts, I just want the lead to be neutral and let the readers make their own decision. This seems like my own OR, so I want to tread carefully.

It seems as if one organisation has been forced to accept the documents provided (passport etc) but there is overwhelming evidence (removed files online etc) that something dodgy is going on behind the scenes. I think either both points need to be in the lead, or none.

Not everyone has accepted the Chinese side of things, there are still a lot of reliable sources who believe she was 14 not 16 and enough evidence to support their claims.

[13] [14] [15]

I don't want to start an investigation into this, or change the article into a witch hunt, but the lead should either reflect that the controversy is not over, or at least it should not lead people to believe that she has been proven without any doubt to be 16.

what do you think? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's great its at FAC, nice work! :) To be honest, I don't have opinion on the flag use - I added the reactions as they came in and flags made it easier as is the case with many other articles, so reading your comment I agree it makes it easier visually, rather than a load of text. But noting the other users concerns, it would make sense to either change them to the "link alt" thing. Bolding is fine but I think I prefer the first option, though I'm happy with either outcome. Sorry I'm not much use, I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia policies in this respect! Midway (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• As only admins can do this, can you please set up an {{editnotice}} and eject the stuff which is currently seen at the top of the article when in edit mode? Cheers. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I'll get to it right away. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • fix "titlesof" to "titles of" :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it you who changed the italicisation of BBC News, etc? If so, was it at the prompting of any FAC comment? AFAIK, italics are usually reserved for traditional (ie paper) journals etc. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I changed all instances of BBC News, etc., to |work= (from |publisher= or |agency=) because that seemed to be what Template:cite news suggested. Based on my reading of it, it sounded like |agency= is only supposed to be used for the agency that wrote and supplied the article (i.e., it's sort of a replacement for |author=) and generally only when that differs from the newspaper/website where we found it (for example, a China Daily article that says the source is Xinhua, or something on ABC news that says the source is AP). Anyway, long story short, the italicization is probably a result of that change.

Of course, I haven't been working with this template for a long time so perhaps that is not the consensus on how things should be used. But that's what the documentation makes it sound like, so if the consensus is different we should probably update the documentation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, '|work=' does italicise. I'll go and sort them out. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting back to you sooner. I didn't do much wiki editing over the break, but I've been doing way too much eding for the Haiti earthquake articles over the last week. I put together some info that could be used on this temporary page User:David_Straub/urumqiriotsedit. I think the main problem with the Urumqi riots at the moment is that it includes almost no information concerning government claims that the riots were orchestrated by a terrorist separatist group in Xinjiang. I don't believe the claims of the government, but most Chinese do. I think that adding one section that explains the views of the government by using articles from mouthpiece sources such as the China Daily would both informative and at least alleviate some of the concerns of Chinese that their views be heard. But I won't worry that this is endorsing their views. I think it is just more likely to reveal how ridiculous their claims are. Review what I put together and let me know what you think/want to do with it. I'm a little busy right now, so if you want to add some of the text to the main article, feel free to do so.

Actually, I down loaded an pirated copy of Colin Legerton's book, but I didn't read it yet. He's in CEUS. I took a class with him last year.

Take care. David Straub (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. To be honest, right now it looks like most of that information is more appropriate in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement article, as most of it is about ETIM and the history of ETIM rather than its putative involvement in the riots, and many of the China Daily/Xinhua articles you found don't actually say much about the riots beyond what's already in the WP article:

• Xinjiang riot hits regional anti-terror nerve just says that WUC might be affiliated with ETIM. (And that statement is sourced to Rohan Gunarata, about whom I remember Gardner Bovingdon had some titillating things to say ;) ). Other than the WUC-ETIM connection, it has little to say about the July riots.
• World Uyghur Congress behind Xinjiang violence: expert Just says that WUC instigated the riot, which is already detailed in the WP article (mostly in the second paragraph of the "immediate causes" section). I recall there used to be more about this in the article (I think there was a whole paragraph on stuff like the "something big will happen" phone conversation, or whatever (update: after some digging, it looks like I removed the "do something big" because the sentence it was in was plagiarized, and I never got around to re-adding it)), and it was gradually trimmed down as time gave us better perspective on all of it. This particular China Daily piece would be a useful reference to add to the section, but I don't think it has a lot of actual new content that needs to be added.
• Urumqi riots part of plan to help Al-Qaida Says that the riots were instigated by separatists and that WUC is affiliated with Al-Qaeda. The first point is already in the article; the second can be added.
• Al-Qaeda threatens Chinese abroad: covered in the International Reactions section

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Made some additions, mostly of the terrorist connection stuff (since I think the rest of the stuff is either already covered, or more appropriate in the ETIM article which is now linked from this section). To be honest, for most of the summer I was pretty much ignoring the terrorism stuff because POV-pushers repeatedly trying to add the article to "Terrorism" and "Terrorist attacks" categories were leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Looking back now, it does look like you're correct to point out that some of that has gotten left out of the article, but at the same time I think there's only so much that can be said (essentially "the government says the riots were premeditated by terrorists and they're connected with international terrorist networks) and I don't think a whole section can be made out of it without repeating ourselves a lot. (Or becoming a mouthpiece for the crazy speculative stuff that was going on in forums in July, like "the rioters had sneakers on so they must have been PLANNING to riot"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article looks much better. Good job. I think the material added does balance out the article. We don't have to respect the views of the Chinese government and most Chinese, but it is important that their views are at least represented.David Straub (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it looks better, and I appreciate your taking the effort to find that material (and to press me to get it cleaned up!). Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to comment on that article, but, after reading it, I don't think I can suggest any meaningful improvement or offer any meaningful criticism.

Well, OK, there is this one sentence, with a reference to a paper by Dru Gladney: "China's minority policy treats Uyghurs as a 'national minority' rather than an indigenous group." I am sure Dr. Gladney's paper (which I did not look at) probably explains what is meant by these words - he is a major writer on these issues, after all. But to a casual reader this statement sounds rather cryptic. I think that to an average person an "indigenous group" simply is an "ethnic minority" that is officially recognized as having a long-term association with a certain geographic area, and is officially granted certain special rights on account of that association. One would think that the (official) status of the Weiwu'er minzu in PRC -- with the XUAR on the maps, a 维吾尔民族简史 publsihed, an official bilingualism of sorts, and the policy of appointing members of the "titular nationality" to the (possibly figurehead) leadership positions in the region -- makes them just as "officially indigenous" to the region as the Nisga'a are to the Nass River Valley or the Buryats to Buryatia. So if I were to write this, I would perhaps try to explain what Gladney's dichotomy means.

Thinking of it, the preceding sentence "Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since the Han Dynasty", with its "whereas", implies a contradiction of the two point of views, even if it does not explicitly say that there is one. I certainly can imagine some kind of 维吾尔民族简史 talking about 我国维吾尔民族 happily living in the area in 100 BC (or wherever), in such-and-such commandery of the Western Han Dynasty empire...

Please feel free to ignore these comments, or to move them to an appropriate talk page elsewhere.

On an unrelated issue: could you insert proper Uyghur letters into Musa Sayrami, Yaqub Beg, Afaq Khoja, and Muzat River, sometimes when/if you have a chance? Official bilingualism or not, my Atlas of Xinjiang certainly does not have any 少数民族文字 in it! Vmenkov (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, it is a very complex paper, and I've kind of taken the sentence out of context (I was trying to avoid giving Gladney too much weight by going into a ton of detail on it). I'll try to see if I can explain it better—it's always tough to strike a balance between brevity and clarify!

By the way, I've had a go at the Uyghur names. Some require a bit of guesswork, since Romanizations of Uyghur are not consistent throughout history (for example, the "a" in "Muzat River" could be either ئا or ئە, which in ULY are written a and e respectively but have often just both been written a). The only one I couldn't figure out just yet is Musa Sayrami (it could just be that the macrons are confusing me, but also it's a pretty old name), so I might have to ask a friend for help with that one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for Syrami and others! I was surprised to see that for Muza(r)t there are two spellings - with and without an r - in Uyghur as well; I thought it was an artefact of careless transcriptions. And there is even an interwiki, ug:مۇزات دەرياسى - of course, to a perfectly empty page! Vmenkov (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you are probably right then. I pretty much just guessed Uyghur names based on the Latin transcriptions and on the Chinese, which often (but not always) are derived from the Uyghur in a more or less systematic way. I hadn't even noticed the interwiki. But now that you've pointed that out, I corrected the Muzat transcription to match what's in the interwiki, which is more reliable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this help clarify the Gladney quote? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I guess it makes a bit more sense now: it implies to the reader that (according to Gladney, at least) recognizing an ethnic group as an "indigenous" one would require the transfer of land ownership /land control to a governing body specifically representing that ethnic group (and not just linguistic/cultural autonomy, availability of bilingual education, affirmative action, etc within the ethnic group's traditional territory). In other words, no Nisga'a Treaty, or even Gwaii Haanas National Park for the Uyghurs. (One can wonder how common this kind of recognition is world-wide, outside of the US and Canadian Indian bands that have appropriate treaties with their respective federal governments. E.g. Basques are certainly "indigenous" to the Basque Country, and the region has a high degree of autonomy, with its government actively promoting the Basque language and culture. But I am pretty sure that any Spanish citizen residing in the region, regardless of ethnicity, has equal right to purchase land, or to vote for / be elected to local governments controlling the land use... But in any event, such a discussion would be a topic for the Indigenous peoples article, and not for the article in question). Vmenkov (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking... just in case the FAC goes through... We're gonna have to find a picture that's suitable for the front-page... I don't think any of the ones we have right now are good for that... (unless you want the damn map, but that'd be kinda cheesy...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I bet we could grab a screenshot from Ccyber's video? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... there is this: File:WLMQ Cellphone screenshots 2v1.jpg. Or was that deemed too extreme or inappropriate for some reason? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate; mainly we just removed it when the video became available, since the video is the better option. (I don't know if they've ever used video for the TFA image, though.) All in all, I think something from that video is the only thing in the article that would really work. For example, the picture of the APCs in September looks good and rioty, but it's not from the actual riots (and we wouldn't want to be accused of making the same sort of flubs that people made in July showing pictures of the wrong riots), plus I think there would be an anti-China POV issue with showing a picture of the crackdown and not showing a picture of the riots. The picture of Kadeer, of course, is a no go since she's just the scapegoat (I'm sure the PRC government would be overjoyed, though, if we put that picture on the front page with the riots article :P). And yeah, other than that all that's really left is the map, and as you say it would be a bit cheesy...plus I think Raul doesn't like using flags and maps.

I think the screenshots already uploaded are a bit small, since it's really four crammed into one. But we could probably hold a brief discussion on what part of the video we want to take, and then have a tech-y person get a higher-resolution screenshot of that. (I don't think we need to worry about taking care of that, though, until the FAC is over :) ) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Just putting this into one more brain before it escapes mine :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick a frame, and I'll get you a high-res image. Just give me the time in milliseconds. :) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, How can this be used for Wikipedia? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Vietnamese entry to match the other three examples given, but I have no idea on how to explain which variant characters are used, and how many have limited Unicode support. There are obviously characters that are more preferable to others, but most would be unable to have them displayed correctly. Do you have any idea on how I can get around this? My meddling can be found at User:Benlisquare/Sandbox2#Viet if you are interested. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's infuriating, this linkrot. The lack of archiving by those archiving sites we use, also. If we kept copies of the articles on our hard disk, at least we can still refer to them although they will no longer be available publicly. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been thinking too. The "Missing Link" article I was able to find (half of) cached on Google, and saved it while I still could...that article in particular is cited a lot so I figured it would be good to keep. One of the other dead ones I couldn't find on Google. I've tried to archive some of the pages using webcite, but I'm not sure if they all worked (one worked when I tried it out, another sat around loading for hours and never did open); webcite would be better than just saving them to the hard drive, since then readers can get it too, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think webcite is good enough, if the coverage is there. Anyway, it's better than nothing, and I'm thankful its around. I've seen it used extensively in some articles, such as Question Time British National Party controversy. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding [16]: nerdiness deserves praise, not pardon! Actually that quote is what I thought of when I read his question, too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Zweifel (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked User Iqinn whether Abdul Haq (ETIM) was the same as Abdul Haq (Uyghur camp leader).

Thomas Joscelyn has asserted that Abdul Haq (ETIM) was the same individual who lead the Uyghur camp, and that he was the manager of a Uyghur guest house. To the best of my knowledge, all claims that the two individuals are the same can be traced to Joscelyen.

I've wondered whether we should regard Josceleyn as a WP:RS. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, a professional commentator. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, an academic who has studied politics, or military matters, or intelligence, or the law. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, someone who was a respected columnist or journalist, prior to starting to blog on the GWOT. He is not, to the best of my knowledge, a former intelligence officer.

It seems to me that he is just some guy who has taken the time to read the same documents I have. On a personal level I don't consider his conclusions any more reliable than I regard my own. Frankly, if I was a blogger I would blog in an intellectually honest manner. I'd never simply leave off from informing my readers of exculpatory information. Joscelyn does this all this time. His claim that the two Abdul Haq(s) are one individual being a case in point. While he informs his readers that some of Uyghurs reported their camp leader was named Abdul Haq he neglects to inform them that the Ugyhurs say he was killed during the American aerial bombardment, back in 2001.

On the other hand, some legitimate journalists do cite him in their articles. And he has been invited to testify before at least one US Congressional committee.

Abdul Haq is clearly a very common name. On a personal level I suspect that the several hundred, or several thousance, Uyghur exiles in the region probably included many individuals known as Abdul Haq.

Intelligence analysts have described the ETIM as a well-organized and dangerous militant group. If Abdul Haq (Uyghur camp leader) was really the 2nd in command of the ETIM, then it is hard to understand how the ETIM could have been as dangerous as intelligence analysts feared. How dangerous could the group have been if the ETIM's 2nd in command, and those he was leading, were armed with just a single AK-47?

So should Abdul Haq (ETIM) say he also lead the Uyghur camp in Nangarhar? IMO it should certainly not assert this as a fact. It should not assert this as a claim of US intelligence analysts. I have no objection to the Abdul Haq (ETIM) article stating that Thomas Joscelyn asserts he also lead the Nangarhar camp.

If this assertion is included, attributed to Josceylen, should it note that he was reported KIA in 2009, while the Nangarhar camp leader was reported KIA in 2001? I dunno. Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested some alternative hooks for the Robert Krentz DYK nomination. Would love it if you'd take another look. :-) Thanks! —Rnickel (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I saw the error with the link to .ogg, and found you fixed that too. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first revert, as I did not pay attention to what code came through subclusion. I filed a bug recently, https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23388 regarding hatnote issues.

I agree with the second revert, though I will point out that the section does need expanding. Please see also recent discussion on wikien about IPA, in particular, comments negative toward IPA and, by default, in support of that Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key. PS: The issue with phonology vs. pronunciation is one of excess information, which is why I think there is resistance to IPA per se. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag,

Please explain in detail why you think this page is spam. You recently deleted it saying it was blatant advertising. You are incorrect in this assumption. The page accurately describes a noteworthy gym in one of the fastest growing sports in the world. If this page is spam, then every other page describing all the other noteworthy mixed martial arts facilities described in Wikipedia should be described as spam as well and also deleted.

If you have suggestions for improvement, then kindly provide them on a page that is completely factual. Otherwise, please do not try to re-delete the page or I will think you have some personal bias against the gym specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmasource (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read the links that have been given to you. The reason I nominated the page was because you provided no third-party sources to explain why the gym meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit of The Dark Knight (film)? Your edit made the page say, "The Dark Knight is a 2008 superhero directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan." I changed it to say that it is a "2008 superhero film directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan." The movie is a "superhero film," not a "superhero.".-5- (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, it looks like I misread the diff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag,

Not sure if you actually read through the updates I recently included in the page you just reverted, but there are 2 additional citations from Sherdog, the largest MMA news site in the world, and an actual newspaper article that came out last night regarding one of the fighters/trainers at The Arena. Additionally, I have included links from both Sherdog.com and Mixedmartialarts.com that list The Arena as an official team site, which is hard to do unless you are one. So kindly stop getting into an edit war and claiming there aren't 3rd party verification when there are right on the page.

Additionally, since you are the one who deleted The Arena MMA page in the first place, please read the following I wrote to another Wikipedia user who got involved in this whole deletion situation. I think if you actually take the time you read my response, as well as visit all the links I have provided in this repsonse, you will realize you are in error in attempting to delete this page. Thanks.

Benlisquare,

I apologize in advance if I am not following all protocols with your Talk page, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not completely familiar with certain things like how to best communicate on the Talk pages and the different users who contribute to them. Since you clearly are an expert in this area, please help me correct whatever issues I need to do in the future.

As far as your concerns/comments, as well as those of others, I am a bit surprised. I created the page on The Arena because I am an avid follower of MMA and The Arena is one of the fastest growing MMA teams in the country and deserves inclusion in Wikipedia on these merits. Particularly given the fact that many of the MMA teams listed in Wikipedia are no longer as notable as The Arena is because the sport is so dynamic and much of the information regarding these teams and their fighters is non-current. Also, my interest in The Arena and its fighters qualifies me as a supporter of the gym/team, not as a conflict of interest.

As far as how I set up the page and what I included, I attempted to follow the format used for the other MMA team pages included in Wikipedia so The Arena MMA page would best fit in. So, if The Arena MMA page is promotional, then I imagine the other MMA team pages should be included in that category as well.

As far as verification of The Arena and its athletes...

1. The team is young and most newspapers do not cover much of MMA. In fact, I honestly do not think newspapers qualify as a reliable source for MMA info as much is reformatted from other sources. However, having said that, you can find recent mention of The Arena and its team members like Olympic Silver Medalist Stephen Abas at the following locations.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/04/07/1887820/ex-dog-abas-sets-mma-dates-at.html

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20100506/SPORTS/5060314/Olympic-silver-medalist-Stephen-Abas-successful-in-mixed-martial-arts-debut

Additionally, I have included several other online mentions of The Arena from sites that are more relevant to MMA such as:

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=news.detail&gid=228200

http://www.mmamania.com/2010/4/2/1402864/2004-olympic-silver-medalist

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Olympic-Silver-Medalist-Abas-Signs-with-Tachi-Palace-Fights-23624

http://www.doseofmma.com/3700/rani-yahya-constrictor-bjj-hl/

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/12-Questions-for-Cris-Cyborg-Santos-22251

2. There are also numerous videos available online of various fighters representing The Arena during their fights, notably Diego Sanchez (who has The Arena logo on his shorts, shirt, and banner) during his most recent fight against BJ Penn on 12/12/2009, as well as Cris "Cyborg" Santos during her last Strikeforce title defense against Marloes Coenen on 1/30/2010. These fights can be found online. Additionally, the UFC Countdown Video Segment for Diego Sanchez that was aired nationally on Spike TV prior to the fight was conducted at The Arena and clearly showed The Arena in the segment.

3. There are also other videos available on The Arena's website itself, as well as YouTube, from third parties such as Bad Boy Brands that show fighters such as Demian Maia (UFC) and Diego Sanchez (UFC) training at The Arena. These videos can be found here at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHEXvWGfnYA&NR=1 and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1VNA7YLWQ and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx3IXyqXiLI

Additionally, there are videos actually produced by The Arena that clearly show Fabricio Camoes (UFC), Rodrigo Nogueira (UFC), Rani Yahya (WEC), Royler Gracie (4x BJJ world champ), Joe Duarte (Bellator), etc. training at The Arena. These videos are located at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrUSGWN0BA and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lI8tccuxw

4. Finally, both mixedmartialarts.com (the official resource for all MMA fighter records) and sherdog.com (the largest, most recognized, and one of the oldest MMA sites in existence) has The Arena listed as an offical team. You can find the links here at:

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=home.link and:

http://www.sherdog.com/links

These two sites are tightly controlled and will not allow links to team sites that are not official and recognizable.

Given all this evidence that you can judge for yourself if you take the time to visit all the sites I have provided, particularly the online video locations (seeing is believing), I cannot understand how anyone could not regard The Arena MMA page as legitimate, as well as the actual gym itself.

I don't know how much the Wikipedia members who commented on the legitimacy of The Arena MMA page actually know about the sport of MMA, but there is absolutely no way these types of MMA athletes would be involved with The Arena if it was not 100% legitimate and deserving of recognition. Even independent Yelp reviewers mention this fact (see here at: http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-arena-mma-san-diego

Please let me know how to best improve the page if it actually needs to be improved given all the documentation I have just provided. Additionally, please share this information with the other Wikipedia members who made comments on the Talk Page as I am unsure how to communicate with everyone simulataneously.

Thank You,

mmasource

Mmasource (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be able to reply to User talk:Benlisquare#The Arena (MMA) Page, and/or maybe propogate it so that everyone is aware of his post? I'll be rather knot-tied tonight, and won't have the time to respond. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just realised it was on your tp as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• • 请帮忙，他写的内容我仅有某种程度的理解(大约懂一半)，而且我可能无法用英文回答他。你可以解释他说的话吗？还有他在条目的讨论页上的内容，也请解释给我听。--俠刀行 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 烦！英语维基到底没几个懂中文，这样很难沟通。终于体会到什么叫英语帝国主义了，反正以后的日子都需要靠你帮忙。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 俠刀行 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

告诉用户User:Miranda1989，叫他不要轻举妄动，不要擅自移除模板。我因为一时没空，无法有时间仔细查阅内容。还有，请告诉我哪里可以找到管理员(目前常上线的)，为了避免突然状况，不排除告状并封禁此人。 --俠刀行 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag - I can read the text above, so no need to provide a translation. I ask for your assistance not as a translator, but as an experienced administrator.

An individual - 俠刀行 - who by his own admission speaks very little English, has placed a globalization template on the article Battle of Frenchman's Creek. This was a minor battle between American forces and British forces during the War of 1812 and took place on what is now the Canadian shore of the Niagara River. This event involved locally stationed British forces and American forces from the opposite side of the river - there was no global significance and therefore I see no reason for the existence of the globalization template. I've detailed reasons for removing the template on the article's talk page, and invited comments. No comments were received save for one from 俠刀行 himself demanding that it be kept, but not offering any reason. One can not globalize an issue which had no global scope.

In response to the lack of objection, I removed the template only to see 俠刀行 restore it with a demand that it not be removed again, and with the threat above (which I will view as if it were placed on my own talk page).

So, I ask you, as a wise and experienced administrator - how should I respond to a persistent user with whom I can barely communicate, who seems intent on placing a template for a reason which he does not wish to share? I will bow to your advice and offer my thanks. Miranda1989 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• 您应该告诉这位用户（Miranda1989），他事先未经过协商就擅自移除国际化模板，这是不礼貌的。尤其是在完全没告知我的情况下，仅仅在那战役的对话页上写出长篇文字，也没考虑到我是否理解。连最基本的告知都没做，非常不好。共识是达成解决问题最基本的要求，在没有协商前也未告知他人，这样做显然有欠妥当。尤其我发现到，他对我的回应似乎置之不理，那到底谁才是"固执的使用者呢"(a persistent user)？--俠刀行 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Rjanag, just to throw my pennies into the ring, too... I've arrived here by way of Battle of Frenchman's Creek and WP:3O. I offered a 3O at Frenchman's Creek, which basically said "wait for Rjanag to reply". Sorry to pass the buck, but I can't see a way for this to resolved without understanding why 俠刀行 feels the tag is appropriate. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 03:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale, which you userfied, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag,

Just following up on this maintenance template issue. I have listed numerous 3rd party sources that should take of any issues you had with notability, verification, etc. However, now that I'm learning about Wikipedai protocol more, I'm trying to follow it as closely as possible. Is it OK to take the template down now that there have been numerous verifiable references added to the article? Mmasource (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. The whole purpose of the AfD debate is to determine notability, and the very fact that there is a debate going on is enough to show that this page's notability is under dispute. You are in no position to unilaterally rule that the page is "notable" when you know that numerous editors disagree. Wait for a consensus to form before taking any action on the cleanup template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a little unclear then. On my tp, you said "Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Arena (MMA), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." I thought I clearly resolved that problem by adding numerous 3rd party verifications subsequent to WP admins viewing the article and recommending deletion bc there wasn't enough 3rd party verifications. Now there are more than a few. In fact, in reviewing the other Mixed Martial Arts team pages, I noticed I have provided more 3rd party verification sources than almost any other MMA page. Are you saying that these 3rd party verifications are not sufficient, particularly compared to the other pages in the same category. many of which use the same 3rd party verification sources i.e. sherdog.com to establish notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmasource (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag,

would it make sense to write articles on mayors and deputies rather than labor camps? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant, which would be better concerning human rights. By deputies I meant members of parliament. Sarcelles (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I responded Tim1357 ^talk 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you recently speedily deleted a page I created called Wikipedia_malamanteau_controversy, with the complaints, "Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7). no independednt sources cited", however, both complaints are unmerited.

First, I clearly indicated the significance of the topic, with stats directly related to its significance:

"The page for Malamanteau received over 70,000 views[3] and 400[4] talk page edits within 24 hours of the creation of the page."

The wording of the above sentence is a bit ham handed, sure, but that alone doesn't merit deleting the page, forget speedy deletion.

Second, I also provided multiple independent sources. The Reddit page, the Askvile page, and the grok.se page are all independent from the parties involved.

Thanks, 8bit (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to WP:Reliable sources. Two of those sources are forums, not reliable sources. The other is part of Wikimedia's toolserver. And per WP:BIG, indiscriminate numbers (of views or edits) do not constitute notability. Wikipedia edit wars and disputes are not notable unless they become the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)\

How does that meet criteria for speedy deletion? 8bit (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I said my piece. If you disagree you can re-create the article and let it go through WP:AFD, although I can assure you that it will meet an overwhelming consensus to delete (based on the reasons I just gave). If you want to waste your time with that, though, I am not going to stop you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Kay. Commencing time wasting. 8bit (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are just needing to see replies on my talkpage! (couldn't resist the link)

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.

moɳo 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

你还有留意到我之前的翻译要求吗？最近又有人留言给你了(加上我也有)，要不要解决上面的争论？误会好像越来越多。 --俠刀行 (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag

As mentioned above, I looked into a WP:3O request that had arisen from the use of a tag and the concerns over the use of that tag: discussion here.

One of the editors has posted on my talk page.

Are you able to communicate with this user? It seems clear to me that they can not understand the comment I left at the article's talk page, nor here on your talk page.

Many thanks! TFOWR^propaganda 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

真是欲加之罪何患无辞。

我使用的IP地址是我工作的里昂一家教学医院的IP地址，另外G.G.使用的是国内一家大学的IP地址。这些IP流量大，日夜不休很是很正常的，但是不是代理Proxy。

GG确实是我认识的人，所以他投票的时候自己把选票划掉。应该说我们没有做过分的事情。

另外牵涉到一位用户是我的一个同事，我帮助她建了她第一个条目。她不会英语，也不会来英语版，也不参与的我的条目。我们当时不知道系统自动建立了个英语版帐号。因为我的帐号比较老，英语版、法语版、汉语版都是一次一次建立的。所以我给她建立的条目加了个英语版链接。结果她的英语帐号也被封了。她根本不会来英语版，但是不知道什么时候会为了英语版的这件事情，法语版的帐号被当作马甲被封。

我已经和几位管理员联系过了。有什么好说的呢？

Ryulong曾经扬言可以把我的帐号封掉，没想到是这种方式。尤其讨厌的是还无缘无故牵涉别人。我自己倒也算了，只是对其他受害者感到非常不好意思。

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZHU_Yeyi&action=historysubmit&diff=352396677&oldid=352304918

此外，关于上海话拼音的事情。那套输入法其实2004年就被Linux操作系统采用了。其实这套拼音的条目也是上海话的Phonology，对读者还是有意义的。什么也不用说了，管理员说不行就是不行。

上海话和维语不同，不受法律保护。拼音市场的混乱对教学推广都造成困难，促使灭亡。这就是2007那次被删除的原因。你也看到了那套一点线外资料都没有的Long-short一直好好。实际确实是有人故意整这套方案。

最后没有什么好说的。我只能做自己力所能及的事情。

--83.145.72.66 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ZHU Yeyi, 你已经被封锁了。这不管我的事。 rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I want to create a language.Would you help me?Be a language similar to Esperanto, but it will appeal to the East..I've started creating a few words.You can look at my English Dilyaratan page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dilyaratan --Dilyaratan (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not really what Wikipedia is for. You are welcome to work on conlangs elsewhere, but if you don't intend to work on improving Wikipedia (by editing articles, etc.) then you should not really continue using your account here. As for your request, I don't have any particular expertise in conlangs so I can't help. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got university examinations in mid-June worth 70-80% of my subject marks for my four subjects... I'll be curbing my visits to Wikipedia soon. I've got all the time in the world after that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Take your time! 祝你好运 ;) rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fort Lee High School, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Today I discovered that someone moved Qing Dynasty personality Dorgon to Chengzong Emperor, and does not offer any reasons for doing so. Said user did this completely out of the blue, therefore by procedural rules alone I think it's safe to move it back... however, since I don't have administrative powers, I had to come here and ask for you to kindly do this for me. I hope it's not too much trouble. :) Colipon+(Talk) 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then user colipon should have directed to me, he never leaved a message on my talk page or on the articles talk he just sneaked behind the table and asked for backup,so im at best just returning the favour of his rudness. One last, i only reverted one so i think you're exagerating it calling it edit warring, hope you'll gave him the same warning.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have clearly taken sides, have the decency of refraining your presence from this discussion.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

your biased--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i would have, if you hadent decided to become his strongarm--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Guess you couldnt leave you're boy alone--Andres rojas22 (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead ban me, ill just think how will you explain banning a guy only cus he irritated you, some administrator you are--Andres rojas22 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this Andres user came back, without trying to engage in discussion, and just reverted everything again, as soon as the page came off of protection. Procedurally, I believe this to be in contravention of WP:3RR, so I've come to you to seek advice on what measures should be taken. Colipon+(Talk) 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I won't block him myself (I don't think I would be breaking any rules in doing so, but it would just give him more to complain about), but I've reported him. Some people just don't get how this place works... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I was thinking of closing your 3RR report, but request that you edit the complaint so it does not refer to editor maturity or use the word 'whine.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, edited. But if you look at this user's comments in this section, his level of maturity is quite clear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Though your article revert was done as part of your admin role, and this seems OK, it is tricky that you may be in an editorial dispute with Andres on another article. This leaves me uncertain how to close the 3RR, and I may leave it for someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a relevant "editorial dispute". That is an article I have never looked at before, don't care about, and don't intend to look at again. I noticed it while I was reviewing Andres' contribs just before reporting him, and undid what looked like a bad edit. Either way, even if it did mean I was in some sort of other editorial dispute with him (which I'm not—all I have spoken to Andres about so far is his behavior, never the actual content of his edits), I don't see how that precludes you from closing an AN3 report that seems pretty obvious. Are you saying you don't think Andres is blatantly edit warring? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the 3RR with a warning to Andres. My own preference is to avoid doing any reverts myself when handling an edit war. If somebody makes an outrageous change, there is probably someone else standing by to undo it. (Vandalism, BLP or socking would be the obvious exceptions where I would personally do the revert). EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A while back I began developing the townships of Xinjiang like Anningqu and it was I who requested the map of Xinijiang for pin. I wondered if you had access to sources or a list of townships. I wanted to work towards building up a coverage of Xinijang. My friend User:John Hill has done a lot of work on historical Xinjiang and the Silk Road but much modern content of townships is actually missing. Interesting region. I just hate it when people bring politics/predujices to the wikipedia place and which motivates/drives them. I seem to have encountered a misunderstanding with your friend Seb. He accused me of inserting PRC POV into the Tibet Museum article which I had not even noticed and it was genuinely innocent. This has upset me. As a result it has left me suspicious of his own political viewpoints and his reasons for developing the Urumqi riots article as he seems very politically minded and anti-PRC. It has made me question his reasons for spending so long on the article. I do hope I am wrong and that you both genuinely have no hidden issues. The article is very good and seems to be neutral thanks to the large scale collaboration on it but what I said about the coverage in western media being less I think is worthy of mentioning. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that the article was not written by an Uyghur sympathizer. . But I couldn't agree more with your notion that "it would have been polite of you to notify the editors ". I'd appreciate the same from time to time... Lets not forget that I voted "support" for the Urumqi article. But what I saw happen over the Tibetan Museum which strongly implied to me a resentment of the Chinese and their propaganda by Seb, you can forgive me for suddenly being suspicious of him. The first work I saw that he did heavily was the Urumqi riots article. And I did say during the FAC how surprising it was that the article was developed so much when the Urumqi article itself is a lot poorer. Then that got me wondering why there was so much passion there in writing the article, as if it was done to identify the grievances facing the Ughyurs thats all.Everybody has a certain reason or motivation for writing an article. I just know that many people bring real world biases with them to wikipedia and implant it all over, I am very pleased to hear that neither you, Seb or the group that wrote the article do not bring their issues with them to wikipedia and try to make it neutral. Thanks for clearing that up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In the suggested merge of Word (language) to Word you wrote, "Any content that is worth preserving can be brought over here, but there's no need for a full-on merge." Isn't that a definition of merging? <g>

I do agree that there is no need to merge everything at Word (language), and upon closer inspection (probably something I should have undertaken before supporting the proposal; bad on me) there is only one suggestion there that is supported by reliable sources. That is the description of semantic primitives, cited to work by Goddard and what I think is a textbook by Wierzbicka. I'm not sure if this should merged to Word, but think either it could be merged or else there could be a pointer to Semantic primes either in the text or as a See also.

Given the lack of well-sourced information, I would have no problem with a redirect without merge. I'll suggest as much at Talk:Word. Cnilep (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I only agree with merging insofar as expanding the existing Word article with any information that might benefit it (something that we would be doing anyway if we wanted to improve the article), I don't feel any obligation to "preserve" what's at the other article unless it is useful to the current article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the OTRS permission is pending since July 2009. Was the permission sent? If not, the image needs to be deleted. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had deleted this a while back but must have been confused. I got permission for this photo, but the e-mail the guy sent me ended up not being specific enough about the license it was released under, and I never did manage to get in touch with him again. Oh well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pity :( Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)