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.

---

I noticed that there are the two wikilinked dates in the DYK notification placed on the user's talk page, ex: "On [[30 December]], [[2008]], ..." and "<!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] -->. There have been several recent discussions with consensus on WP:MOSNUM that dates should no longer be linked. Do you think it's time to change the DYK template to match the WP:MOSNUM#Linking and autoformatting of dates guideline? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one, see WT:DYK for more discussion. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How's the source-checking coming along? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Prod tag added to ad for a non-notable person. You indicated concerns before, and the ad remained basically untouched. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded at article talk page. Thanks for your message, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Politizer, many thanks for DYK response. I knew there was a glitch when I clicked the preview button. Unfortunately I've now wrestled with the page you indicated for over an hour and it still looks like a wiki-mess. I fear my writing skills are ahead of my software expertise. Could you please give a hand and paste:

... that 30 years after Bob Dylan wrote his song "The Times They Are a-Changin'", he licensed it to be used in an advertisement for the auditing and accountancy firm Coopers & Lybrand—performed by Richie Havens?

into the right box. Many thanks for your help :) Mick gold (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! many thanks. (I wish I had mastered the knack...) Mick gold (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Politizer. If you have some time, can you revise the BLPunsourced template per Category:Possibly living people. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I'm done with my dissertation, and done grading Final Exams. Now my wife wants us to have a little vacation together for some Quality Time etc.
• I still hope to be able to help out though. Looks like real fun. Later Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just call me Dr. Ling. but not Dr. Nut, please ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reaction. There is also a talk on the page of Hagia // but maybe you have already seen that too.. Anyway, it would still be better if we use Hagia-Sophia-Laengsschnitt.jpg but I kept myself from being rude (by doing the change without talking) to those two. On a positive response that we can.

Regards.

--Devenirchaud (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.119.98 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed that as the page has now been deleted. Admins can see deleted edits so if you want to take this further I'd go to one - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would usually revert, but I could sense an edit war so I just wanted to get the point accross to the user. I just decided to give him some hints on notability and etc. and 'familarise' the user with wiki policy as he/she was a new user. Thanks again Olly¹⁵⁰ 18:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Hopefully we can make a productive contributor out of him/her yet! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing a clue is in the name. Extreme inclusionism is just as frustrating as extreme deletionism; even a certain pumpkiny user never got this pointed and mindless. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I recently tried to upload a new version of File:Icos_logo.png. The image that showed up was blurred though, so I quickly changed it back. What happened? Did I do something wrong? Oddly enough, now in the file history the thumbnail is crisp. This is my first time uploading. Shubinator (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I saved it under a different name and it works now. The image page took a refresh or two to "see" the new image...maybe last time I didn't refresh. Ah well, whatever it was, it works now. Thanks for your help! Shubinator (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The inappropriate references have now been changed as per your request. 128.214.205.5 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the third reference to the early selective attention paper that is now removed. 128.214.205.5 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just give you some impressions of mine which I would have written in a review. As you said, I expect a little more than some reviewers. Many people go ahead and take their article to FAC so I don't want them to have a false idea about the article. On the other hand, many things are ok for GA that would not be accepted at FAC.

• The article seems to be a little POV, and rather than just describing the information, it seems to use peacock terms.

• "famous" may be one of those terms - you would have to be careful and have it well sourced. Describing its status as a World Heritage Site already makes it "well known". So it is good to emphasize the reasons it is a World Heritage Site.

• Undistinguished prose

• "a popular destination for both domestic and foreign tourists" - too tourist bureau-like

• It also uses unnecessary terms that impart little if any meaning. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid

• "Mount Huang is particularly famous"
• "mountain range comprises many peaks, 77 of which" - 77 doesn't mean anything without knowing the context of how "many peaks".

• Geographical templates in body of article - there is no "rule" against them, but many readers, including me, find them distracting. Many people put them in the upper right corner.

Do read the articles on peacock terms and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. They are very helpful in letting you know how wikipedia wants articles to be written. In fact, really look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. It will help you out in the long run if you want to write articles here. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your your comments. I'll see what I can do about the peacock terms; I admit when I first came across the article it was barely referenced and in such bad shape that for a while I was just putting in whatever I could to establish notability and stuff (which generally meant a lot of random praise from various sources); also I was so focused on increasing breadth of coverage (by adding more and more stuff) that I wasn't paying close attention to the tone of what I was adding. And since it's a travel location, it's hard to find reliable sources that say anything neutral about it...most "reliable" sources are books and stuff that talk about how great it is, and pretty much the only non-positive stuff you can find is some random peoples' blogs. I can try to look around a bit and see if I can find any more sources with more substantive information, and meanwhile try to clean up any POV stuff from what's in there now.

As for the geographical template, I could just get rid of it...it was there when I first came to the article and it intimidated me so I've kind of just been ignoring it. I don't think it adds much to the article anyway.

Thanks for your comments; it's nice to have another pair of eyes looking, because stuff that now is so obviously POV to me I just didn't notice when I was the person writing it (I guess I can't really hear the tone in my head). I'll see what I can do about prose and peacock terms while the article is waiting for an official review. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is just words you learn to use or not use. FAC hates words like "however, also, much" - words that don't add to the sentence but people tend to use. Peacock words are standard; once you become aware of them, you learn to avoid them. Sources are difficult. The World Heritage Site usually has some information. I was surprised that nothing is on the Internet regarding this mountain. Well, see what the reviewer says about the sources. Meanwhile, you can work on the typical prose issues. Also the references per WP:LAYOUT and per How to present citations. You need to provide a separate Bibliography section for the books. (Some people separate it into Notes and References.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can separate the books into a References section and use LAST, PAGE for the notes. I think I avoided that in the beginning because there were so few book refs; now that I have more book refs, it probably won't look so funny.

About the internet sources...yeah, I was surprised too; when I first started working on the article pretty much all I could find was junk tourism websites and blogs. For much of the expansion, I had to wait until I visited my parents for the holidays, because they had a coffee-table-book sort of thing that I got them a while back. Among Chinese people, this region is generally said in the same breath as the Great Wall when it comes to "famous places you have to see before you die" or whatever, but it's hard to find much on it in English, and I didn't have the patience to wade through Chinese web searches (I'm a slow reader in Chinese). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

…for the barnstar. It's not one I've seen, and one that makes me very happy. Glad you found my thoughts insightful. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey idiot. :) Funny stuff. Thanks for the laugh Politizer. It may be time for some chamomile tea, a white room with padded walls and big soft fluffy pillows and some nice soothing elevator music. The poor kid was agreeing with you too. :) But these are stressful times we live in, so don't worry. Just the other day some A-hole reverted one of my edits. :) On the other hand it might be a reality check to step away from the computer!!! But, I loved it just the same. Oh well, if it makes you feel any better it's sunny and 70 degrees where I am. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. You and Artie La Pella are awesome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a two-pronged strategy to get myself out of this funk! a) Tonight I am going to sleep. b) Tomorrow I have some big plans to get up from this desk and maybe even go outside! After all that I bet I'll be back to my usual sunny self. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NO WAY!!! Don't take the easy way out. Drink more coffee. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're still awake. I take it you're outside on a laptop...? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I gave into the dark side and had a night of sleep...and after that I even went as far as going for a run in the morning. I feel like a traitor, but a very refreshed and chipper traitor! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

hi again

I noticed you just deleted one of my refs from the Stephen Chow page

I did post on the discussion page, but now I need to know if you are going to delete all the imdb refs (awards mainly as there don't seem to be any other sources and the e-mail addresses from the official Golden Horse FF page don't work) If so, can you wait till tomorrow and give me the chance to find other refs ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply

I appreciate that the imdb is often lacking in various ways due to it being a user contributed source, but i am trying to go through all their refs (and theres lots, for shaolin soccer alone there are 240 !! shaolin imdb refs)

I'll try and do these tomorrow as its 05:50 here now and i should really get to bed lol

anyway thanks again for that and spk soon !

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tip about using side menu re User contributions, etc and going to bottom of page.... --AlotToLearn (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for further tips, also. I checked out the Kates tool link - sure it will be hand in times to come!

--AlotToLearn (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to also look at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Kumarappa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thambirasa Kuhasanthan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Theepan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Pandithar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Jeyam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Mano
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandiah Ulaganathan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Akbar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Sornam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Vasanthi Michael
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irasaiah Ilanthirayan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lt Colonel Appaiah
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Santhosham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K._Dharmarajah

THF (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my question! It should work, but it doesn't... - theFace 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to your suggestion, I fixed half of the problem. I tested the template on my userpage, and it works correctly! However, Template:Blocked user is still including itself in Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses. - theFace 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, it doesn't. Stupid cache. Ok, problem solved. - theFace 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Politizer, see Talk:List of tributaries of Larrys Creek for a FL that was also a DYK, but which seems not to be listed (yet) in the category. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You very kindly answered a question I had posted on the Village Pump. Unfortunately, I did not express my question correctly and posted this, but no one has replied in nine hours. If you could reply here or at the Village Pump I would be very grateful. Basically, what I had not expressed correctly is that the link goes in the external links part of the article -- not a source. Thank you and I look forward to your reply. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have seen your reply on my talk page as well as the other page. The reason I asked and the reason I am doing this anonymously is that there is a dispute among some editors. Several beer editors had decided on a description that indicated there are problems with the site. Two trollish editors (non-beer editors) have come along and overridden the beer editors with a description that ignores the problems with the site and said that the description the beer editors had decided on violates Wikipedia policies for the reasons I gave. The reason I asked was that, in my experience, the requirements for external links are quite different for source links. I had looked in the external links page (WP:EL) and found nothing to confirm what the trollish editors said. Perhaps, as you noticed, I am trying to have the link removed since it violates WP:ELNO, however, I am interested in finding the answer to this question since I will also be filing complaints against the trollish editors. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have a stupid question. The timezones are confusing me and I was wondering if you knew what time Obama is inaugurated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.215.105 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting Qwertyuiopasdghjklha's vandalism to my user page! — Athaenara ✉ 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Must have been a sock...I guess in the course of keeping WP tidy we all make our share of enemies. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

True. That vandal was followed by 212.219.21.116 four minutes later (blanked my talk page), so of course I wonder who was socking and what his/her issues are. — Athaenara ✉ 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hey - i saw your post on my friend's talk page about the vandalism to my user page - the whole thing is a misunderstanding. don't figure him on the line - it was all a joke. he edited my page (we're friends IRL) and i was like "Haha, let's make an official-looking notice on his talk page" (cause he's a wiki noob) - and you came in and now it is official. he never really vandalised, don't consider him a vandal. :) Goosemanrocks (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. » \ / (⁂ | ※)

I not a fan of counting, but I'd guess your table of DYKs that have become FAs is wildly off. I checked 7 articles I know that were DYKs and later became FAs and only one appears on the list. Try this one for starters. Yomangani^talk 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On 22 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air and Simple Gifts, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's work on improving the article. Providing Chinese terms is important, it is common with other Chinese language related articles, too common for Japanese. --Anatoli (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Chinese grammar#Chinese translations of grammatical terms, when you wish to say something. If you have a chance, take a look at Japanese grammar, Arabic grammar and Russian grammar articles, where I was also involved. --Anatoli (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at American Involvement in Haiti. This article is a mess. Maybe an AfD candidate. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problems appear to be poor referencing and, more seriously, no clear definition of what the article is about...."American involvement in Haiti" seems like a bit of an arbitrary crossing (similar to the "Surveillance and Incarceration in the US, China, and Russia," which I think is the AfD where I met you!), and most of the article is just a random collection of facts that are only loosely connected...making the general idea of the article OR. It might be better if the article demonstrated the significance of Haiti—as opposed to other places overseas—for American businesses/whatever (it's hard for me to be any more specific, since "involvement" in the article title is already so vague) and the impact America has on Haiti...otherwise it seems a little random.

Since it's just been a couple days and the article still has {{under construction}}, I'd say the best thing to do is probably leave a bunch of tags on it to warn hapless readers (I'll do that now) and have a talk with the main article writer, introducing him to the tutorial and the basic guidelines and how to make references. If it doesn't show major improvement within a couple days, I would support you in taking it to AfD to be either deleted or userfied. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entropa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Politzer and Manadude2, I welcome the outside intervention in the problems in the William Rodriguez page. I admit that I have been provoked into incivility by Combatant and her allies--after a long history in which they have uncivilly accused me of racism and lying, and when some of her allies have attempted to intimidate by threatened outing. I have been skating on the edges of the 3RR rule because Combatant, apparently the only pro-Willie editor qualified to edit the William Rodriguez page, insists on reverting all my edits without any explanation of why she does so. Many of Combatant's edits can easily be refuted on factual grounds. I welcome a discussion of the issues; Combatant's position is not supported by the facts. Contrivance (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I may need your help, Politizer, I am getting two different stories from both people. manadude2 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do check the edits and the history, the tone, the mockery and the intent is obvious with Contrivance edits who clearly has stated his disdain for the subject, check his comments in the archived page.Combatant (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Politizer are you back from vacation already? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I presumed you knew the File:Huangshan.JPG image (logs) is now available as File:HuangshanTop.JPG (Commons:File:HuangshanTop.JPG), because you uploaded both and tagged the local image for WP:CSD#I8 deletion as a duplicate of the Commons image, so I didn't think to notify you at first. The local image was still linked on two of your user pages, however, so I took the liberty of updating the image links. I'm not sure I did it properly, so please check these three edits of mine. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 11:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Buddy! Im sorry for blanking those talk pages. I just get a little angry sometimes. Thank you for trying to help me FI will try to be a better user on wikipedia.Nosebutton (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tonghai's just been nominated for FAC. Noticed you just edited it, so could you give some feedback, possibly? Yes, it's short. Ceran^→//forge 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Ceran^→//forge 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you understand French well? Perhaps you could help translate this core article into English? It will be gradual but any help would be much appreciated given other commitments. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get it done within three days, is this unacceptable? If it is in the workspace and I feel more pressure to edit it it will get done. Already a lot has been translated but I must say I feel a little disheartened from your view on my wish for better French speakers to help with it. If in the future somebody tries to devlep the article to a higher standard the translation issue will become a major problem, this is why I wanted the assistance of Fluent speakers rather than doing the whole thing my google translate and common sense. People can clearly see that the bones of the article are being drawn up, I sincerely doubt somebody is going to never come to wikipedia again because of it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, yes in places the articles looks quite weak on French wikipedia. It obviously wouldn't have passed on here as the references alone are not done properly. I'll get a smuch done as I can today. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you and myself included may have underestimated me! the article has been virtually all translated within a few hours now, just a paragraph in the history and a little in the theatres section and a few captions to fix to finish. They didn't translate so well so it will be best to leave the remaining up to a fluent reader. Needs a great deal of work still as an article but at least the article is massively improved in content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got only two questions at that link. If you answer them quickly and satisfactorily, I can pass this article without delay. Nice job, and continue the good work! Crystal whacker (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If I knew how to give you a barnstar, I totally would. Great work on improving the article and getting it up to GA status. I'll get the last fact tag gone when I check the book tomorrow (I keep it at my office now).LedRush (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Instructions here: User:LedRush#How_to_give_Politizer_and_others_a_barnstar Ikip (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I would forget about the default value. Pictures are often of something else entirely, and besides it will require more instructions and instruction creep is something we should be trying to avoid. Also people will probably make mistakes with it, as they did with the "creator" and "nominator" fields, best to let people just fill in the field manually IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people often do include images with no rollover text, but I think having a specific rollover field will encourage them to do so. If you add a default, people might decide the template is going to do it for them when in fact a manually written rollover would be more appropriate. So I think we should at least try it without the default first :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on getting Mount Huang up to GA status. You also deserve barnstars for civility, for tirelessly working to improve citations, and for you work on China-related articles. Wikipedia is only good because of editors like you. LedRush (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your in depth analysis of A4 and copyright violations at Wikipedia talk:Did you know! Best, Cunard (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pol, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad other editors also see how important this guideline will be. It looks like some editors are making a point to comment on your statements, which means you made some really strong points. best wishes. Ikip (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A bigger thanks! I appreciate the barnstar! I am working so hard for so many editors I will never meet, on a subject that I have never really personally used (characters and episodes) and I personally find is not very important. Ironic huh? I am going on 4 hours sleep and am getting a cold because of this wikimonster.... Thank you so much for your kindness. this makes all of my frantic work all worth it. We really need to keep in touch.

Have you thought of joining the ranks of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? there is a lot of exciting work going on for the project there. I am excited how many new editors we have retained, who contribute now, and will continue to contribute in the future. Ikip (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(next day) The more I get to know you, the more I like you, I love this quote:

It's my belief that most productive Wikipedians first arrive at the site wanting to do something that is against WP policy -- advance a point of view, cover something that doesn't meet the notability guideline, etc. We also often bring baggage from other Internet sites where the social norms or policies permit different kinds of behavior -- social networking activity, attacks, canvassing, what have you.

None of this makes us bad people, just people who have not yet fully absorbed the Wikipedia ethos.

This was me to a "T" when I came here. I love how you seem to show empathy towards vital new editors.

That is what I love about wikipedia: how many intelligent people edit here. Ikip (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		The Helping Hand Barnstar is to be awarded to users who frequently help new users. This barnstar is awarded to Politizer, for his tireless help to new users. Helping wikipedia become stronger with the retention of new users. Ikip (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Thanks for your help Politizer. Best regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:` is just a redirect to void, I only picked it as it was one of the only single characters left free. How ever it appears nothing is currently using it at the minute as it is subst. I notice is not being used . So you can have ` and I can use ^ Gnevin (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. » \ / (⁂ | ※)

I know you contributed to one school that I edited on, so I thought maybe you could take a look at this one. The problems I am seeing are two-fold. Firstly, there is a "Hotchkiss in print" section. One editor keeps on adding negative quotes to the section. However, in other schools with sections like this (Choate Rosemary Hall, Philips Academy, Harvard College), the list is usually just a list or a list with a very quick explanation (no quotes). This seems preferable because otherwise you could be searching for alumni that say the most positive or negative things and have flame fests. I think it's better to just stick to the facts.

Also, when I started having discussions with the one editor editing the above section, a new, SPA came by and took extra quotations out of the section and made a new culture section to chronicle the history of bigotry at the school. I find this completely inappropriate and unacceptable. It is poorly written, doesn't flow into the article, it is inflammatory, and it is also susceptible to the flame fest (pro and con) I described above. Additionally, I have never seen this for any school. If there was a notable incident, that's one thing. But a list of opinions seems completely unencyclopedic.

Anyway, as always, feel free to disagree, but I respect your opinion and would appreciate you taking a look.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I moved the article to the authors userpage after you tagged it. I have removed the db tag. Sorry for the confusion. :) » \ / (⁂) 06:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I noticed the move right after I put the db up, and I was about to remove the db tag (with an edit summary of "well well, fancy seeing you here!"), but you beat me to it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, what do you make of this? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash Forwardslash (talk • contribs)

Weird...but hopefully insignificant. Toxicc1 hasn't done anything (yet) outside of his userpage, and these two IPs look like they're on the verge of getting blocked, so hopefully whatever stupidity this is will blow over pretty soon :). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not being used (as far as I know) so I have no objection to it being MfDed. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I appreciate your guardianship in South Korea article against some POV editors, especially Korean Protestant evangelists. Keep up your good work and have a nice day. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I did change one of your latest edits a bit, regarding the number of Buddhists.... I am keeping the 10 million figure, rather than the 11 million, because 11 million is from an article published in August 2008 by a Buddhist-affiliated website, whereas the 10 million is from an article published today (so, it's much more recent) by the Agence France-Presse (so it's more neutral/objective). Furthermore, since the same source says there are 13.7 million Christians, it would not be appropriate to say that Buddhism is the "largest" religion in Korea; it looks to me like they are both pretty major, and both should get equal treatment in the article.

I also did some minor copyedits to your prose, and re-ordered sentences again (I think the section flows best when the first paragraph is one big paragraph explaining the religious diversity—first in terms of census data, and then in terms of historical context and "peaceful coexistence," etc.—and the following paragraphs each focus on the specific religions).

Let me know if you have any questions, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(addendum) I see why you've been tempted to add a line saying the Buddhism is the largest religion in Korea...the graph here splits Protestantism and Catholicism, making it look like Buddhism is the largest. But if you combine the two into Christianity (which I think make the most sense), you can see there are slightly more Christians than Buddhists, although not enough to really make a huge difference—just enough that it wouldn't be accurate to describe Buddhism as the "largest" religion there; both Buddhism and Christianity are important and influential.

By the way, apologies if we've gotten into any edit conflicts...my internet connection is a bit slow right now so things seem to be happening at funky times. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am trying to direct a request for assistance and thought of you ! The article is The Siege I just wondered if you could assist in directing me as to how to deal with this part of the article, in the controversy section.

"However it should be noted that as of 1980 over 90% of all terrorist related bombing attacks (suicide or conventional) are carried out by people of Muslim or Islamic faith or culture."

I am not concerned with whether or not it is factual per se, but rather whether it should be included at all as it is not really relevant to the film. It has been there for a very long time, and is causing problems as it keeps getting deleted.

I did think to remove it and leave a link to "Terrorism" or such. Could you spare some time to help me by telling me exactly what to put in its place and any reasons I should include to delete it ?

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I have removed it outright since it's not referenced. Even if it is added with a reference, I think you would be safe removing it again, as it's simply not appropriate. It seems that the only reason a person put it there is to refute the sources and information in the previous places...but a Wikipedia article is not the place for someone to carry out an argument. People are welcome to disagree personally with the views expressed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and others in the previous paragraph, but when it comes to this WP article they need to either find actual sources that make this statement (ie, not just sources corroborating that Muslims carry out 90% of terrorist attacks, but sources that specifically refute these issues raised in the above paragraph) or keep their mouths shut.

Thanks for the notice, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also - how do I get hold of the script/tag necessary to post the message reply bos like you did on my page It seems I amd forever going back and forwards refreshing ppls user pages to see if they have replied !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again - I'll have to get back to Stephen Chow soon, but for now here's something to say thanks lol

--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Those are templates; they belong at WP:TFD, not MFD. Cheers. //roux   06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I was forgetting something. Thanks for the note; I'll move them over. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I figured you just clicked the wrong dealie. I like TW for starting XFDs; it automagically chooses the right one, basically. //roux   06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. » \ / (⁂)

It turns out that {{UpdatedDYKNom}} isn't deprecated—it's at the hidden core of the template that Ameliorate! setup to create the nominator credit tags, manual or bot-driven. - Dravecky (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing that. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Contrivance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manadude2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 February 2009

It wouldn't hurt to have some assistance. I could some. I,m excited to start my first article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeface (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user talk page edit summary is pretty fucking boring--look at mine in comparison. And, I tried real hard to find something in it, going through some 500 edits. Yes, you had a lot of holiday greetings, imo. Maybe I should post a warning to, well, not to wish people a happy holiday or allow it on your user page? Take care. --KP Botany (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC) PS I'm biased because I like the picture on your user page.

Edit Centric (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I have caught up on the thread. Really, the fact that there aren't currently any penises visible on the main page should have been my first clue that there had to be a wire crossed somewhere. But thanks for the clarification! -- Vary Talk 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! I created an external links section, but it shouldn't be me who decides whether it passes GA. I'm going to close the review now. NCurse _work 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments. I may need support in the immediate future. If there is anything I can do to help you, please don't hesitate to ask.

If you are interested in discussing the RfC in depth, I would love to. I helped convince A nobody to change his mind, but other editors, like GCC seemed annoyed at my messages. Maybe you can convince me to change my mind. It wouldn't be the first time. Let me know if you are interested in talking. Ikip (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this, the word you are looking for is "tendency", although it seems to be an unusual use of the word (one would normally say "tendency to...", rather than just have a general "tendency", but that's what the dictionary says...). --Tango (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Politizer, for always making wikipedia a welcoming place to visit, with his words of kindness and courteousy. Ikip (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, long time-no-speak. I just dropped by to pop a little message. If you come across an IP or user vandalising articles (as you did here), remember to drop them a warning (try using provided templates at WP:RCP). That way, other members/admins can keep track of their actions, and appropriately warn/punish them next time he/she is caught.

Hope you're doing well, Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the update! I usually do give warnings, but you're right, looks like I missed that one. It's possible that I was just tired and lazy (happens sometimes)...or maybe I wasn't totally sure that it was intentional vandalism (could have just been haplessness) and couldn't decide whether to give them {{uw-error}}, {{uw-test}}, or what.... Anyway, it's good to know there's someone keeping an eye on what I do around here! ;) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, keep up your work. =D Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks for the help with the footnote on Garfield Minus Garfield. I'm learning as fast as I can, and folks like you really help!

(No response to this needed, BTW.) Wikiwaterboy (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point.  :) AnyPerson (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Something fairly detailed was written in "talk" concerning why the references removed are i)inappropriate, ii)incomplete and iii)typographically-inconsistent. I doubt this was received. Please revert to the previous edit that removed these references.

The attention and MMN question is somewhat stale, and the work mentioned neither entirely relevant nor seminal. There is some important relevant recent work by Marty Woldorff, that meets the description of work inconsistent with the view that MMN is attention-independent. However, the rest of such work defies publication, which is in part to do with the sociopolitics of science funding and the definition of attention. However, this is not the contention of the present edit. A better substitute reference concerning attention and MMN is clearly:

Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A.W.K., & Mäntysalo, S. (1978). Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica, 42, 313-329.

This Acta Psychologica work was a reinterpretation of Hillyard et al's findings of an early selective attention effect, as was reported in Science. The Acta Psychologica isolated the processing negativity - an arguably endogenous attentional component - from MMN that is accordingly attention-independent. This view is still the consensus, which is not necessarily correct.

A little more quality control and respect for other contributors appears warranted. Threats and accusations of war are regarded as entirely imaginary.

128.214.205.5 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, please refrain from personal attacks when engaged with other editors. We try and maintain a environment that is free from hostility and attacks like those you made. The very first line in WP:CIVIL is Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles and all editors are expected to maintain that principle when editing here. And if I can quote another line: Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviors that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict... When this type of activity goes on long enough and is aggressive enough it becomes disruptive, and in some cases can lead to blocks. I'm sure this isn't going to go that far but you do need to tone it down. Thanks. RxS (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The only thing I have left to say at this juncture, since I don't see anything productive coming out of the ANI thread, is that you will get a very one-sided picture from only looking at the diffs Ottava Rima has given; in fact, I get along pretty well with almost all other users outside of Ottava Rima, one editor from his circle of friends, and the odd VOA that inserts libel into BLPs (and, to be perfectly honest, I will never be ashamed of BITEing users whose first and only edits consist of editing a BLP to call someone "gay," say they are dead, or stuff like that).

In this case, the bits that O R failed to point out in his ANI post are the comments by him that led to this dispute (specifically, threatening ANI action against numerous DYK contributors on the basis of an incorrect assertion—there's no way I can word it any differently, his repeated statements that "non-admins can't edit Template:Did you know/Next update" are simply incorrect). He also failed to mention his history of disrupting the DYK talkpage with threats against numerous users (other users against whom he has threatened ANI/VP/RFC action include User:Gatoclass, User:Art LaPella, User:Suntag, and User:Dravecky). Threatening to start ANI threads against non-admins who edit Template:Did you know/Next update, when the rules specifically state that anyone is allowed to edit it (and when I had given him the link to the rule, and quoted the rule, at least three times in that same thread) is uncalled for.

I'm not bringing this up to tattle-tale, but rather just to let you know why I made the statements I did, and why I have not and will not apologize for them. I'm grateful for your message, but WP:CIVIL is something I understand (which hopefully you can see from my interactions with editors other than the diffs O R has brought up; for one example off the top of my head, I have offered numerous new users help with editing and have recently tried to make a habit of using "rv good faith edit" more often at the beginning of edit summaries)—my messages that O R brought up the ANI didn't happen because I don't understand WP:CIVIL, but because I had what I perceive as a good reason to react the way I did. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No one's looking for apologies, just a greater commitment to keeping discussion civil. It's an issue bigger than a single dispute between 2 editors...it's how editors in general are expected to treat each other and accepted means of communication. You wouldn't say those things in a workplace for example, and we should try to keep those standards here...this is a serious project and everyone should do their best to treat it that way. If it becomes acceptable for people to run around barking and attacking each other it degrades the editing environment, makes conflict resolution harder and gives new users the wrong idea of what acceptable ways to disagree with each other are. Keeping civil is easy when talking to those you agree with, it's harder (and by the way, expected) to keep civil with those you are in dispute with. In other words, even in heated disagreements, even when you are sure the other party is wrong, and even when the other party might be acting like a bonehead, personal attacks are still not allowed. There's never a good reason for personal attacks. RxS (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not trying to come off as Miss Manners here, it's just that Wikipedia has done a really good job at keeping it's standards well above most websites where sniping and flamewars are common practice...it's important to everyone (future users/readers especially) to maintain those standards. RxS (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would remove this entire thread. I think it's nonsense. If you do something wrong I'm sure someone "helpful" will be happy to file a report. There's no reason for these pointed comments about keeping Wikipedia's standards above most websites. There's no one I've come across who works harder or is more dedicated, to a fault, than Politizer. Maybe if he took more breaks and spent more time running he wouldn't get worked up by the nonsense and troublemaking distractions. But besides that, he needs a pat on the back, a kiss on the cheek and a big THANK YOU!!! for all his good efforts and kind consideration of others. RxS, your comments come across not as Miss Manners, but as condescending. As far as keeping Wikipedia civil how about dropping disputes when they're over instead of rehashing them and trying to instigate new disputes from the smoldering ashes. Let's give it a rest. Am I being too chatty? refactored slightly as the chatty comment is unrelated to this discussion and just an aside/ joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly sorry if I came off condescending, I meant to come off as non-threatening. But I'll make one thing clear, at the top of WP:CIVIL are these words: This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy I've gotten my point across and will leave it at that for now. RxS (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked out that page and at the top it says "The Wikimedia Foundation's 2009 steward election has started. Please vote." Then it says a bunch of other stuff. But in the "policy in a nutshell" section right at the top the nifty bullet points say, "Participate in a respectful and considerate way" and "avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible." That's an area you might want to work on. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I appreciate your support, but also I think we can all agree here that Rx isn't the bad guy and is just the messenger, and I don't think her messages were intended to be disrespectful (as I mentioned at her talk page, she is probably not familiar with the whole history of me and this other user). I think we've all pretty much reached an agreement about CIVIL and stuff, and I certainly don't have any hard feelings towards anyone on this thread. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think needless and provocative warning messages with thread titles like "Please focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment" show an insensitivity, a lack of subtlety, and a poor command of grammar that shouldn't go without comment. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think Rx handled it nicely, because it received a civil response and was supported by Politizer. Wordy section title, but I'm guilty of doing that. The whole thing was rather civil and well done, imo, by all parties here. Again, boring. This page is permanently off of my watch list. There are really stressed editors out there who are far more entertaining. --KP Botany (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. We don't need any of teh dramaz here! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Politzer, the reference on the South Korean page saying that it's one of the world's oldest civilisations is NOT a good one. It merely goes to a museum brochure which repeats the same national myth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2009

Men. This should boil up into something real fine, if people stop laughing at their own bad and obvious puns. --KP Botany (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. I figured it was at least more lively than my lackluster page. Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you delete the interesting tidbits. I would love to know what a TBI employee does for a living. --KP Botany (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your info. I know its silly but the IP will again do the same thing. Anyways i'll revert them back. Wish i was an administrater to handle such things more effectively. Thanks again "Legolas" (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I appreciate the direct communication, though -- and I hope you don't mind my being somewhat blunt -- I'm not sure one editor can say to another editor that only punctuation editing will be tolerated; there are legitimate fancruft issues as well at Luck by Chance. Regardless, there is a larger issue here. I hope and believe you do not condone Legoals' clear incivility and breaches of Wiki etiquette; his rude and vicious language is inappropriate (his poor spelling and grammar notwithstanding), as is his expressed wish that he could use administrator powers to further his personal editing choices.

He has no right to bully, threaten, demean or insult other editors, or to take a rude tone with them. If you believe he does, I'm afraid we must disagree -- although I will, as you can see, do so with respectful language and a maturity that I'm happy to say that you, though not all editors, appear to possess. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Legolas' messages may have been a bit blunt (I haven't looked at all of the messages; only the ones currently on your talk page), but are not anything that needs action from administrators, as I mentioned at ANI, and thus there's no need to carry on a thread there; the best thing to do if a dispute continues is probably to leave messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics asking for an uninvolved editor to come give an opinion and mediate if necessary. ANI generally doesn't concern itself with issues of incivility or language unless the person is particularly egregious, over a long period of time, and disrupting major areas of the encyclopedia (not just "disrupting" as in making people unhappy, but "disrupting" by keeping people from getting encyclopedia-building done, distracting everyone with needless drama, and being incivil to the point that it drives away other editors and they never come back)—case in point, I am currently the subject of an ANI thread (although it will probably be archived within the next couple hours) where a user reported me for not being "nice" enough to him, and pretty much all parties involved told him that there was no need for administrative action. I think discussing issues candidly at the article talk page (not just vaguely characterizing one another's edits as vandalism in general or cruft in general, but making a list of specific facts/examples that are in question and discussing each one in terms of whether or not it belongs in the article) should help everyone reach a consensus and improve the article, and if that doesn't work out well then seeking an uninvolved editor from one of the outlets I mentioned above would probably be a good idea. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to wonder why you seem so intent on defending him and desiring to block my access to a legitimate avenue of grievance. First, here is only one example of his many uncivil posts:

"Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything. You are continuously removing information under the assumption of gossip when they are reported by authenticable sources. As i said before, if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges are blocked.

Even with that, and with a second editor noting Legolas' incivility on the article's talk page, you are expending a remarkable amount of time and effort to something that would seem of tangential concern for a disinterested party.

I respectfully ask that you let an admin decide whether the threats and bullying above warrant, at the very least, Legolas being reminded that his behavior violates Wikipedia policy. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to block you from making grievances; in fact, as you see above, I directed you to other places where you can find help. I was merely trying to explain the purpose of ANI. You went to ANI looking for an uninvolved editor, and that's what you got. But since you have once again levelled accusations against me and have belittled my input (essentially saying "back off, I want a real admin"), I'm not interested in working with you any more. Good luck, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ziggymaster

I strongly consider the above user to be one of many sockpuppets - some have already been blocked.

You might want to look at the articles this user has edited and see if there are any obvious patterns shared with other users.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I just reported Manmohit2002 to AIV for repeated disruptive editing at South Korea; even if he weren't a sock, his disruption should be blockable. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on the AIV report and himi for the next 24 hours or so? I won't be online, and in the off-chance that AIV rejects it (they might say it's too complicated) I think he should be reported at AN/I. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I shall halt on listing that thing in the IGN article. Thanks alot and we shall talk sometime -Snakeface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeface (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag, I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you about this. I've looked over the video and, unfortunately, there is no clear shot of McGill, or even a shot that does not crop out his left shoulder. There are few photos of McGill floating around online and all of them appear to be copyrighted promotional headshots. There is one amateur photo on flickr[2], I will inquire about the possibility of acquiring it under a free license. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any pages in this category. What makes you think it's not empty? -- Stepheng3 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

{{DYKsug}} and {{DYKsuggestion}} were supposed to be in it, it looks like the category just hadn't updated itself for some reason. I just tried purging the templates, and now it looks like the category is populated. Sorry about the confusion! rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks for looking into it. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a handle on what this article is about? All the references are very technical and I would have to do some major learning to get this right. Do you think the article is actually combining more than one topic? Could you outline what I could be most helpful at doing? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have enough of a handle to write introductory-level stuff, but I'm not a super-expert yet. I agree that it would be nice to bring in some more accessible references.

As for what you can do...I was mostly just wanting a second pair of eyes to let me know if there are any major concerns that need to be addressed before going to GA (but it will be a while before I take this to GA anyway, so there's no rush)...and also if there are any particular sections that are really confusing, you could point them out. I imagine that the references we get are going to be pretty complicated, even if they're not journal articles, because that's just what the field is like...but my ultimate goal should be to take all that complicated stuff and dilute it into something that a WP reader can get something useful out of.

My main plan for the article right now is more or less as follows:

1. Add a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot (for example, the question of how information in sentences is processed, and how neuro uses specific brain responses–the ELAN, LAN, N400, and P600, note the redlinks—to piece that apart)
2. Add a section, if possible, on the applications of neuro to other fields and to real life
3. Possibly spin the "experimental design" section out into a separate article

That's about it for now. It's hard to go into stuff like the models proposed about how language processing works, because that is really more the domain of psycholinguistics (the way I like to think of it is, people in psycholinguistics propose a model about how the mind processes some language-related thing, then people in neurolinguistics test it...of course, there's a lot of overlap, but the general thing is that a lot of neurolinguistics is just knowing about brain imaging, and figuring out clever ways to see what the brain is doing; they just happen to do it with the goal of attaining linguistic knowledge rather than other stuff). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oi, butting in rudely, I'd be very happy to work on Neurolinguistics. But it will be at least one week, possibly three before I have any time. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; it's not going anywhere! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the article is looking rather good now. However, you say you are not an expert. I am an expert to some degree, but not specifically in neurolinguistics, which, if it is a cross-discipline field, becomes tricky. (Hope you are going to let others have the "last word", or you will never be done on AN/I.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Haha, yeah, I'm trying... my buddy's latest comment doesn't have anything worth responding to, so hopefully I will manage to keep my mouth shut long enough for the thread to get archived. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just started following this article today based on a mention in the NY Times. If you need another view or citation the NYT article is Art Hoax Unites Europe in Displeasure. FWIW, and I'm not sure if I would stick my own neck out to defend the writer's statement, upon a rereading I was surprised to see "...while five Lithuanian soldiers are apparently urinating on Russia". Best, CliffC (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! It looks like there's nothing from NYT in there yet, so this will be very useful (to prove that it's been covered by mainstream media outside of Europe). As for the Lithuana thing...yeah, it's a bit touchy. There has been an ongoing argument at this article over what the soldiers are doing, and people have inserted all kinds of text, such as "urinating on Belarus" or "urinating on Lithuana's western and northern neighbors"...the consensus for now seems to be to revert everything that people add and leave it vague and non-speculative for now.

Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I added source for my claim, although it in Czech, the important information in article should be pretty obvious to understand internationaly. It is much more obvious than any svastica reference on Entropa. But I may be not good at using external citations on Wiki, please take a look at it. --XChaos (talk)

Looks good now; the only problem was that you had three brackets {{{ }}} instead of two {{ }}. Thanks for adding your source!

Also, if you have time, could you provide (somewhere in the footnote; the easiest way to do it is put it after the closing brackets) your English translation of the relevant quotation (a sentence or two) in the reference, just for the benefit of non-Czech-speaking readers? Thanks again, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can provide translation, just show me where it should be placed. Relevant fragment of text reads: Depiction of Germany on Entropa sculpture by David Černý in Brusel doesn't have to show just motorways or maybe swastic, but directly nazi symbol - number 18, according to two historians. Numbers 1 a 8 symbolize alphabetical order of letters A a H, which are initals for Adolfa Hitler. ..... "It's utter nonsense", Aktuálně.cz was told by Černý. "If someone wants to see symbolism where there is none, he or she always finds some.", he added.

That looks good; you'll just have to provide the original Czech as well. You can do it something like this:

<ref>{{cite web | ........... }} " CZECH HERE "<br />'''English''': epiction of Germany on Entropa sculpture by David Černý in Brusel doesn't have to show just motorways or maybe swastic, but directly nazi symbol - number 18, according to two historians. Numbers 1 a 8 symbolize alphabetical order of letters A a H, which are initals for Adolfa Hitler. ..... "It's utter nonsense", Aktuálně.cz was told by Černý. "If someone wants to see symbolism where there is none, he or she always finds some.", he added.</ref>

Let me know if you have any questions! (Warning: I will be heading to my campus soon so I might be unreachable for an hour or so.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Pol.., er, Rjanag. Interesting decision. I can understand why, but why Rjanag? Seems like an odd name to choose. (And difficult to pronounce might I add!) Cheers, » \ / (⁂) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why have you made this change? What does Rjanag mean? For that matter, what does Politizer mean? But I had gotten fond of you with that name! Now I must change? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

When I log on at work you're "Rana" (well, R-square block-ana-square block ... I'm guessing they are IPA characters?!). At least my home computer has a decent browser, I suppose...! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, will do. Look out for a note under this heading in about 12 hours, assuming my train doesn't break down or something! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine now — those chracters are showing up correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Byeonggwan. In this series of edits, it seems that you have been copying material from History of Korea into South Korea#History. Those are split into separate articles, however, for a reason. First of all, the History of Korea article describes the history of Korean culture in general, whereas the South Korea article should focus mainly on the South Korean nation/political entity. More importantly, the article would simply be too long if we included all of Korean history, which is why the article just has a brief summary of the history, with the {{main}} templates linking to History of Korea and History of South Korea for readers who want a more in-depth history. If you intend to merge those history articles into this, please discuss it at Talk:South Korea before making any drastic edits. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it is somewhat strange to divide South Korean history into 2 pieces cause of the matter of space, and what I don't understand is that the part before division of South Korean history is longer than the after division(since 1945) as you know, but it is too short obviously. Anyway, I left the part of After division because it can be South Korean history.

Why do you not answer and just undo it on South Korea page? South Korea is considered as a one country in international world, but just Korea is not considered for now. They can check Korean history but South Korea is South Korea which is more important. And, I said I changed before division part mainly. I don't think it is necesary to point them out dividing its history into before and after division.

>talk/_contribs 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to have an other pair of eyes review it, but since nobody seemed to care enough I've protected the page because it was going out of hand, but technically this was an edit war. He's wrong, but not wrong enough to allow that. I know this can be frustrating because that's borderline. The protection will last 12 hours, after that we'll see how it goes. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to ask for a review, I took the protection step because I really didn't want to block any of you and it was really getting out of hand. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. I saw your note at talk:Broca's area, which led me to look at your page. I had a sudden frisson of recognition when a vista of Huang Shan opened up before my eyes. I climbed there myself early in 2006 – through snow and mist (and none of yer funicular this and cable bloody that, thank you, but hard trudging all the way up and down). I took many photos that resemble yours. I'd love to go back when more can be seen. Blizzards are pretty atmospheric; but I'd like a longer view on the descent, next time.

I look forward to your work on Broca's. Related articles could do with a little freshening up, too. I'll probably do some myself.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Wooly Willy. There are seven or eight links and considering the article's length that seems to me and appropraite number. The article was reviewed once and failed. It has been expanded and renominated. Short articles can win GA status. While some information about WW will never be known, that hardly seems reason to 'fail' and article that exhausts the topic with the information available. WP is about quality - not length of article compared with DYKs, and number of links. Thanks again for your interest! ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only links from actual articles (not redirects or user talk pages) are from Sesame Street and I Love Toys. You are correct that short articles can get GA, but there is still a "broad in coverage" requirement that I don't believe is met in such a short article; likewise, having only two sources suggests to me that it is not well-researched enough. But anyway, like I said, I am not doing an official review, just making suggestions; if you want to keep it up for review, you are welcome to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is source material. There's a dearth of material on this toy in spite of it being a "classic', still in production and named to a prestigious list. We know the artist's name who designed the card but it only appears in an unreliable source (the external link at the bottom). Broad in coverage is adequate here, I think - where, what, when, who, why. All established. It lacks detail - total number of units sold over a fifty year period, etc. etc. The sort of detail and anecdote that WP likes will probably never be known. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken your advice on this and withdrawn the article with the hope of finding more material. Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't mean to discourage you from editing, since you have obviously done lots of painstaking digging up of information; it's just that I don't think the article would pass in its current state, and having two failed GAs in rapid succession would make it pretty hard to get it passed in the future when it actually is ready, so hopefully with some more work it can have a stronger chance later of making it. Happy editing, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I have been having problems as I don't speak/read Chinese.

There are several citations needed, as well as lots of info that has been removed and I would like to restore them.
One of the main problems is reading the credits to put peoples names next to characters.
If you read the chat page Talk:Stephen_Chow the last two sections have most of the details.

Can you help with this ?

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. What exactly do you need help with? Do you have links to things that you need translated? I can't do any major translating (I'm not a native speaker, so I can read most of the stuff but it usually takes a while) but names here and there I might be able to get. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized you might not have noticed this....I'm actually the same person as User:Politizer, with whom you discussed the article before. I just recently changed my user name. Sorry about the confusion! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL ! It was mainly because of your requests that I needed help ! thought I finally had someone to give me the translations of the credits lol - Looks like we're the only two that keep plodding on at this one lmao

I still haven't had an email back from any of the Golden Horse people, so looks like that's going to be a problem.

Like the layout of the filmography section btw !

I'll keep plodding on trying to find those refs and get back to you soon about it all

--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work if you are seriously thinking of FAC. As far as the "hoboes" quote, I would ditch it as hoboes and migratory workers are not the same thing, regardless that someone wrote that they were. I am certainly willing to help you with copy editing articles. I would advise stalking the FAC page, if that is your goal, so that you see the types if "issues" they consider important. One of the first I asked myself is if "street newspapers" is actually a term, but you did a good job of showing that it is commonly used for the meaning you intend. One thing about FAC, they are very particular about word use. I would advise checking out User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises to get an idea of their values. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I like the elegance of this rewrite, but I'm not sure it quite captures the intention of the template. {{Sections}} is for articles which don't have any sections in the first place. {{Subsections}} is for sections which have gotten too long; the various paragraphs contained within might not vary much in topic, but nonetheless some headers would help with readability. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I suppose I just didn't see the different nuances between the whole template; I was mostly just trying to get them to work like {{unreferenced}} and others. (Like most template edits I make, this was precipitated when I tried to use {{sections|section}} in an article, and it didn't do what I expected.) I suppose I could make some further changes to {{sections}} so that in addition to just toggling "this article/this section" it would also change the wording to be closer to the original wording of {{subsections}}? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This included some attacks on Ottava - consider this a warning. Please do not use personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia.  GARDEN  15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to say anything about O R; I was just pointing out that he's a user I don't like (and he doesn't like me either; these things are both widely known, I think, among people who've dealt with us before) so it should be extra-special that I'm supporting someone who gets along with him. If it's problematic, I'll just remove it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed. I thought it would have been clear before that the comment was not about me or Ottava but about Backslash Forwardslash, but anyway, hopefully this edit will alleviate your concerns? Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an acceptable change, but please consider what you're saying before you say it, especially in somewhere as public as RfA.  GARDEN  20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess this is one of those ubiquitous problems with internet communication...you lose the nuance that you can otherwise put in with your voice and body language (in this case, to shift the focus of what you're saying to where it's supposed to be, and mark the rest as an aside) and people might think you're saying something different than you really are. Oh well. Not the first time that has happened. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this are one of the reasons why collaboration is going to hell in so many areas of wikipedia. I really was appaled by this comment. I would really be ashamed if I made it.--Patton^t/c 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That went nicely with a turkey and cucumber roll and a cup of tea at a desk-bound lunch! Anyway, I used the new template for the first time, having just finished that article I was talking about on the DYK talk page (the one with the missing images ... surprisingly I got all but four today), and "Status = New" didn't seem to work. I'm guessing that's because I should have put it in lower-case; if so, I think I'll add a note to the usage guidelines. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update! I think I can modify it to make "New" work; just give me a few minutes since I'm in the m iddle of responding to an AfD right now. Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't give the editor the pleasure of an answer. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's a good idea. Being hounded is sure fun though. :P Cheers, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You meant hounded right? :) • \ / (⁂) 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well....now it looks like what I need to be is trouted! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not trout worthy - just an important distinction between a minor online inconvenience and a very serious real life criminal offence. • \ / (⁂) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this is why you're running for adminship and I'm not ;). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PS what prompted the new sig? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What new sig? • \ / (⁂) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't it used to have » ? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Found the • in the title of a page I was referencing, so decided it was time for a change. • \ / (⁂) 07:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for welcoming to DYK as I now consider it home. Please do look over my approvals/questions and let me know if there is anything that needs improvement. Again, thanks. This is an area that I've never really seen until recently, but is certainly a fun one! ^Law _shoot! 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! For a couple months I was a really intense DYKer, and racked up something like a thousand edits there, but lately I've been suffering some burnout and haven't done much. I'm hoping to get myself back into it eventually. From what I can tell, you've been doing great work, and the more you do there the more familiar you'll get with it; and if you're ever unsure of any noms, there are always lots of people around willing to help out and give advice/second opinions. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to be that stickler, but I've been asking potentials to make sure their hook is in the article, and cited at the end of the sentence. Maybe IAR applies to some things. Trichoniscus pusillus was a case on which I need help. The hook is only inferred, but not explicit in the article. In fact, I enjoyed the article, but I couldn't verify it because although the hook was accurate, it wasn't as clear-cut in the article as I would have liked. Does that make sense? ^Law _shoot! 10:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right; I just checked the article, and I got the same impression. I left the writer a message, so hopefully it'll get cleared up. Cheers, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making completely and utterly unconstructive comments like "I hate Ottava Rima". That contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is merely inflammatory; desist from making such comments in future. — neuro^(talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see the section above. Anyway, desist. — neuro^(talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed several days ago already, I already got a warning, I already pointed out that my intention was being misinterpreted, and most importantly I already changed the comment. I don't see why this message was necessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not change the "I hate Ottava Rima" bit. This is completely separate. — neuro^(talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, ignore me, I'm wrong. — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "I don't get along with him," which I think is a statement of fact and not an attack. I already explained why I don't think it's a comment about him (it's a comment about how strongly I support \ /). Anyway, if it's a problem, you can take it all out, I don't care. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you owe Ottava an apology.--Patton^t/c 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Concurring with Patton, I think an apology is in order. I'd be offended if someone said they hated me, even if they redacted it later. — neuro^(talk) 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. This is a user who has been hounding me for two months and attacking me in multiple areas; with all due respect, you are probably not aware of the history between us. I already removed the offensive comment, and that is all that needs to be done; I don't see why people are suddenly digging this issue back up after it was resolved 24 hours ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Patton mentioned it at #wikipedia-en, I thought it was inappropriate, and acted before he told me that you had already been warned. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know all about Ottava and his history in DYK, I've even been on the other end of a rant of his and had my work called "bullshit copyvio" by him, but saying you hate another user is completely unnaceptable. We are a collaborative website. I think withholding an apology, particularly after you have been asked to give one, demonstrates lack of backbone. Apologising in a situation like this takes tremendous amounts of courage I thought you would be capable of, and I would have respected you greatly for it, but if you're just going to play the victim that's fine with me; I'll have you know it makes you smaller. The only one hundred percent certain way to get rid of a troll is to close the browser tab. Takes a mouse click. Hard to do though, isn't it? --Patton^t/c 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have been warned, and I thought it was behind me now. I don't see what good is going to come out of bringing it up again and asking for me to do any more. If you expect me to apologize to this user when he is currently engaged in hounding me (attacking an article just because it was written by me, not because of content issues), then I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen. I don't mean any disrespect to you two because I know you're just trying to be mediators, but actually I would prefer if we could just drop the whole issue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I appreciate your advice, Patton, but it's too little too late. Something you might not know is that I apologized to Ottava after our first encounter in December. His response was to threaten to have me topic-banned. So, no, I'm never apologizing to him again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This does not jutify you saying you hate him. You know that rant of his I just mentioned above? I apologised him if I offended him any way (Even though all I said is that I like writing military history articles) and he said yeah right w/e. He's a bit of a problem user, and if he does become severely incivil he will be blocked, but you should never return incivlity, let alone return critism with incivility.--Patton^t/c 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that his past actions excuse incivility (if my comment as incivil). I was explaining to you why I didn't apologize this time; you are entirely right that apologizing takes some backbone and should be done, and I did it last time, and it was fruitless, which is why I'm not doing it again. That's all. The other thing is already in the past. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your request for a nitpicker on the GAN page. Any interest in swapping reviews? I have 2 waiting for review now, one intended for eventual FA status (Cyathus), and another shorter one (Gomphus clavatus). If you're up for an arrangement like that I'll nitpick to the best of my abilities :) Sasata (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...Cyathus might be a bit over my head, and I think I wouldn't be knowledgeable enough to give it any useful input to help it towards FA...the shorter one, though, I think I can handle. I'm a bit busy today, but is it ok if I start a review maybe this evening or tomorrow?

And, of course, you are welcome to review at Neurolinguistics if you're interested, but don't feel obligated to; if I decide I'm able to do Gomphus clavatus, I think I would review it even if you didn't review mine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, I was looking for the next review to do anyways, and the neurolinguistics article reminded me of an enjoyable neuropsychology class I took. By the same token don't feel obligated to do mine, but start whenever if you do, I'll probably do one more copyedit on Gomphus clavatus later tonight. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the "old" version. I found the new one a bit difficult to use for copying-and-pasting; I found I was grappling with the layout and ended up deleting spaces to get it all on to one line. {{subst:NewDYKnom|article=|hook=... that ?|status=new|writer=|image=|rollover=}} and its variants are nice and efficient, and there's the advantage of having the commonest variants to hand in the edit window: especially useful for regular "non-self-nominators" like, er, me...! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"That user is one of the only people who's actually working to improve the article and address the problems " --> This is just nothing but youir opinion. How could you possibly judge someone who fit into your taste is the only group who make an effort to improve the South Korea article? And coincidently it seems that you're also a chinese just like the user you mentioned. I strongly recommend you to think about what is true patriotism for your country, China. 68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have to apoligize for my misidentification of yours. However, I don't think putting tags is just a solution to improve the article. I suggested my opinion in the talk page for the article, so please let us know your counter opinion againt it. Thanks68.40.179.217 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, is a good translation. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another potential citing for Rare Disease Day from NIH Genetic Reference Guide
• Also e-patients are an influential blog who have recently covered it's impact as a global awareness event here
• Although these sources come from the website of RDD (but they are echoed on each of the national alliances/foundations' independent websites visible from each of the pages listed here), they show the official level of recognition of the event. The day is endorsed by Princess Mary of Denmark, Princess Astrid of Belgium, the Governor General of Canada, the European Comissioner for Health, the First Lady of Hungary, the First Lady of Italy, Elle Macpherson

--CostelloDc (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (CET)

New reference: European Union website cites offical support for Rare Disease Day CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 February 2009 (CET)

Why exactly did you create this new template? I might be missing something, but you haven't said what was wrong with the old template. Please respond on my talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, the advice is really welcome and as a newcomer to Wikipedia I'll be happy to read up on the etiquette and add potential leads for article content into the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment was placed at User talk:Politizer so i moved it here. Frehley^{Space Ace} 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK EURORDIS as an article in progress has moved temporarily to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CostelloDc/EURORDIS
CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 February 2009 (CET)

You have every right in the world to be aggravated, but telling somebody to shut the fuck up is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I hope you can understand that regardless of the situation, we need to be civil to all editors. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The above also applies to this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Hunter. I've conducted a GAN review for street newspaper. You've done a nice job, and I'm confident you'll address all my suggestions fairly quickly. Looking forward to getting this article up to GA shape!--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a small error in the explanation of NORD in the first sentence of the article National_Organization_for_Rare_Disorders. NORD as correctly mentioned in the title stands for the National Organization for Rare Disorders as opposed to the National Organization for Rare Diseases. Congrats on the article! by the way. CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (CET)

Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing this article. I'll be adding more comments to the Neurolinguistics review later tonight, but probably won't be completely done for a couple more days. Hope you aren't in a rush! Sasata (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job with street newspaper, I really enjoyed reading it. The GA has passed. Congrats! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thought it was odd to see that at the bottom of the main page. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I linked to my user page. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've set mine up as well.Pyrotec (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I also give my thanks. Although I am not too interested. Thanks anyway. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you're good with Parser functions, I was wondering if you could help fix a template I created: Template:Infobox choir. It's currently only in use on one of my sandbox pages, and for some reasons it's producing a bunch of extra code. Any help appreciated. --Eustress (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the GA review - the review was very thorough, and helped me think through issues with the material in the article. John Jomeara421 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you have reasons to suspect me since the version i reverted was the manmohit one, but out of all the versions I have looked at, that was precisely the one that looked best edited. The other ones have unncessary tags, have image downsized, captions removed and have some controversial facts and figures which were edited out on that version. All I can say is that i am NOT a sock. Mayamore (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HEy politzer, why did you change ur username? Nosebutton (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is well known that Jupiter is Zeus and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology) "Jupiter was given many different names. 1. Jupiter Ammon (Jupiter was equated with the Egyptian deity Amun after the Roman conquest of Egypt)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun "Much later, because of the evidence of the adoration given to Amun in many regions during the height of his cult, Greek travelers to Egypt would report that Amun—who they determined to be the ruler of the Egyptian pantheon—was similar to the leader of the Classical Greek pantheon, Zeus, and therefore they became identified by the Greeks as the same deity. Likewise, Amun's consort Mut became associated by these Greeks with Zeus's consort in the Classical pantheon, Hera."

"Alexander the Great journeyed there after the battle of Issus and during his occupation of Egypt, where he was declared the son of Amun by the oracle. Alexander thereafter considered himself divine. Even during this occupation, Amun, identified by these Greeks as a form of Zeus, continued to be the principal local deity of Thebes during its decay." —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnionWorker (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2009

Well, first of all, Amon/Aamon is not the same as Amun. Secondly, Wikipedia pages are not considered a reliable source by our standard; if you add information to an article, it should have a source from outside Wikipedia. But based on your edits to other article talk pages, I am concerned that your addition of this material to the Amon (demon) article is just an attempt to get a rise out of people. Please demonstrate your sources at the Talk page before adding it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Amon, Amun, Amen, Aamon, Amon-Ra... etc. It's all the same.UnionWorker (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. There are other interpretations as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah on dream land. But I guess the truth can't be known. After all the white supremacy have to kill the other race's. Though, the Qumran texts, history of hundreds of years, will be published in the internet at the end of this year.UnionWorker (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice!!! Macromonkey (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm usually quite good with templates, so you know. In any case, the template seems to be working just fine now.

Thanks for setting up sounds in the new template - I created DYK Listen around the time of the first sound files in DYK, and rather like sounds in DYK, so figured... you know. =) The new one still needs documentation of the sound files, though - having a feature is no good if no-one knows it exists. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on your user name. But,I didn't blank any talk pages. I haven't ever since those comments on it. Nosebutton (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On 22 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beverly Eckert, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I recently saw your sig over on the technical VP, and noticed that it could use some trimming.

Here's your original sig:

• rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs
  • '''[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000"><span class="Unicode">ʨ</span></font>ana<span class="Unicode">ɢ</span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</small></sub>

  (235 characters)

Here's a slightly reworked version:

• rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs
  • <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> <small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small>

  (179 characters)

I combined some of the unnecessary tags together (and put the unicode class around the entire link). In my browser (Safari), they look nearly identical; the only difference is that the "/" is smaller, due to the <small> tag being applied on the entire "talk/contribs" portion, but it's not a big deal. Plus, it shaves 56 characters.

Anyway, feel free to keep your original sig and do nothing with this; I do it primarily as a mental exercise, to see how many characters I can shave off of lengthy sigs. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that looks great; I have been annoyed by how much space my sig takes up (but the Unicode class is necessary for people who don't have nice fonts in their browser), and this will help a lot! Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay, I love it when me being bored helps out someone else. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the personal attack at the AfD page...I REALLY wish more users would join this discussion though! Tom Danson (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article looks very good. I hope it doesn't bother you that I've already thought of everything first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll get you one of these days! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your expertise in Wiki syntax and for being an incredible asset to the community. Cheers! —Eustress talk 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And a special thanks for helping to fix that template! —Eustress ^talk 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Yes I basically want to know if its a reliable source for this article, but obviously I'd also like to know how and where else can it be accepted as a reliable source. Shiva (Visnu) 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to look at the new templates. Miscellaneous thoughts (take with grain of salt):

1. I like the idea behind the change from "creator" and "expander" to "writer," but I think the new terminology will drive many contributors away. Regulars are accustomed to the idea of "creation" and "expansion," and are likely to be lost when they see "writer." It requires more bytes, but I'd prefer to preserve the old terminology, perhaps by making this field something like "creator/expander" (but I don't think slashes are legal in the fieldname... maybe "creator_or_expander"?).

   That's a good point. Changing the name would not be difficult..."creator_or_expander" is a bit long, but I can't think of anything better. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It's very helpful to see whether the hook I'm about to review was newly created or expanded -- and I think it helps keep nominators on their toes when they have to indicate this. That information still needs to be in the text display, IMO.

   I'm inclined to agree.... I think it was Gatoclass (and probably others, although I don't remember whom off the top of my head) who suggested to me that this wouldn't be necessary, since in theory we're supposed to be checking the article history anyway and then it should be pretty obvious. But personally I like specifying created/expanded. One solution would be to go back to having two separate |creator= and |expander= parameters (which would also solve the problems you raised in your first point...it would be tedious for me to code, but oh well, that's my problem). Another would be to add something like |status=, which could be set to "new" or "expanded"/"expansion", and depending on the setting would display "New article by ..." or "5x expansion by..." after the hook. That would be easy to code, and personally I would like it, but it does raise the problem of making the template a bit more complicated (as any addition of new parameters will do). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

3. In the source code, the auto-generated credits for the "multiple" case are a nice improvement, but I'm not equally pleased with the standard example, where the single credit is almost overwhelmed by "div" codes. I don't like having to cut and paste information that is bracketed by "div" codes and other distracting markup code.

   I thought about that, too...unfortunately, I haven't thought of a way around it yet. There has to be something there so that the credits templates don't actually show up. (I guess technically there doesn't, other than the fact that our precedent is not to have visible credits templates on T:TDYK...personally, I think they're kind of ugly and might be distracting, not to mention there's no guarantee that the nom will be passed anyway so we might not want to encourage nominators by showing them that credit template right away.) The original version of this template used an embedded void template, rather than div tags, generating something like this:

{{*mp}}... that this is an '''[[example]]'''?
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:User|User]] ([[User talk:User|talk]]).</small>
{{User:Politizer/Credits | credits=          <!--Credits begin.-->
*{{DYKmake|Example|User}}
}}                                           <!--Credits end.-->

Which really is not any better. Of course, personally I don't find the extra markup distracting, but that's because I already know the template like the back of my hand and I can just tune out what I know is irrelevant; I can't expect everyone to be so familiar with it all. Anyway, I do agree with you that this extra markup is an annoying problem, but I believe it's an insurmountable one, unless people become willing to have nominations looking like this on T:TDYK:

• ... that this is an example? Created/expanded by Politizer ^talk/_contribs
•   Example – Politizer () ()

1. For the aid of people who are working with the source code when building the next update, it is very helpful that currently the source code contains clear labels for "hook", and displays each proposed hook on its own line. This seems to lose that, due to those pesky style codes.

   Ironically, that was what I had in mind when I added those comment tags above and below the hook...trying to offset the hook from the rest of the text a little bit. Maybe it's just cluttered things. Would it help if I added an extra space within each of the comment tags, thus making the hook be even more "by itself" (and thus stand out more)? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I'd like to see a standard way for people to add and label their proposed alt hooks so that the person building the update can easily find the hooks and quickly identify the alt hook that they intended to select. (Hooks should not be buried in other code....) --Orlady (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know if it's possible to have that done within the template, since this one gets subst'ed (and thus is no longer a template) the moment it is used. I remember with the current {{DYKsug}} we did once float the idea of working in extra spaces in the template for when people add ALTs later, but it was shot down, mostly with the argument that it breaks up the flow of the conversation (with all the ALTs at the top, it might be difficult to see where they occurred within the discussion, and what issues caused ALTx to be suggested). I also remember not too long ago one user created {{DYKalt}} for making ALT suggestions (I think mainly on the basis that people were trying to suggest ALTs using {{DYKsug}}, which is only meant for brand-new nominations) and it was not very well-received. I guess we just have to find a way to balance making ALTs easy for promoters to deal with (as you suggest) with making them easy for nominators/discussers to deal with (in essence, by keeping the instructions for adding alts as simple as possible, most likely by not having them be involved in the templates and whatnot). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm leaving my responses above. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. Since I didn't find a discussion about this on WT:DYK, and since I don't have much time to look for one, I'll reply here. The template looks fine to me. I'm not that confident about the status parameter - if people messed up with nominator and expander parameters, won't they mess up with this? - but I think we could go ahead with it. We can always switch back if there are any major problems. Let's try it and see. Nice work with it btw :) Chamal ^talk 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not entirely sure how this new template is any different or how it will affect me? Is it that comments/reviews must now be left inside the template? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not used any differently than the current one; the main difference is that the end result looks smaller. Currently it makes something like:

{{DYKsuggestion 
 | hook = ... that...........?
 | creator=Politizer
 | creator2=
 | creator3=
 | creator4=
 | expander=
 | nominator=
 | image=
 | comment=
...etc.

the new version, on the other hand, makes

{{*mp}} ... that........
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] ([[User talk:Politizer|talk]]).</small>
<div style="display:none;">
*{{DYKmake|Example|Politizer}}
</div>

Everything you do as a vetter will not be affected at all. You don't need to leave comments inside the template, because the template actually disappears when it is used (as you can see above, there is no template in the final output, like there is in the current version); you still have the discussion as normal. I thihnk the only people who will really be affected at all by this are the people who take hooks from T:TDYK to Next, since this layout looks slightly different. For nominating articles, the only real difference is that now you would say writer=Candlewicke instead of creator=Candlewicke or expander=Candlewicke. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well that isn't too big of a change at all. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A few issues I can think of offhand:

1. Why not just call it "NewDYKnom"? I'm in favour of anything that shortens the amount of typing :)

Actually, {{NewDYKnom}} also works; it's a redirect to {{NewDYKnomination}}. I figured having the full name would make it clearer for people to see the template (in the category or whatever) and know what it is, and NewDYKnom would be useful for people (such as myself) who don't care and just want to get it typed fast. I suppose I could always switch them (make NewDYKnom the template and NewDYKnomination the redirect). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2. If the template is going to format alt hooks as well as the original hook, I suggest they appear at the top of the output text under the original hook, with the credit templates following.

That wouldn't be too hard. Done Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. I suggest you add to the "nominator" field in the template page a note that says something like Article nominator, if not the same as the creator/expander.

My original intention was only to leave documentation "instructions" like that for the fields that are required (article, hook, writer) and leave the others blank...I figured that would help force people to fill in the required fields (if they're copying and pasting from this example, they would be forced to delete the junk from those fields, and hopefully write something else in them) and would help clarify which fields are not required; in the table below there is a more specific description of when to use each field, including |nominator=. Although, I suppose not many people will be cutting and pasting directly from the template page, so it might not be a big problem to add more stuff to that example. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

4. No problem with the status field, that is a good idea.

- Other than that, I can't think of anything else right now that I'd like to see - although I'll probably think of something after you've finished it :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, do you think "author" might be a better label than "writer"? "Writer" seems a tad inaccurate as a label to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's probably better, since there is more to article creation than just writing prose (there's linking, formatting, bringing together refs, yada yada). I'll work on updating the template, the documentation, and the instructions. I might consider making |creator= also still work (although not be officially recognized in the instructions) just in case people accidentally enter "creator" out of habit...but that might be a pain to code. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fiddled around with it a couple days ago and I don't know if it will be possible. Trying to make both "author" and "writer" work does this: because of the subst'ing, if you leave one blank it just inserts the text {{{writer}}} (or author, depending on which one I make "primary"), leaving you with a bunch of ugly stuff like Created/expanded by [[{{{writer}}}]]. So I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too; we'll just have to decide one to go with. "author=" is fine with me; I'll just have to sit down for a few minutes sometime and change them all in the template.

Also, I was thinking, is there any point having a new name? We could just redirect {{DYKsug}} to this right under everyone's noses; other than the change of "creator/expander" to "author," no one would even notice a difference in how they use it. Although I guess that might make people forget that it's a new template...telling everyone the name has changed might be a bit annoying, but it will also draw their attention to the fact that things are a tiny bit different. So I suppose we can just go ahead as planned, switching the instructions to this template (and maybe even doing some manual replacements...ie, if anyone after the switch uses DYKsug at T:TDYK, I could manually change it to the other template before the discussion starts); then, once all the instances of {{DYKsuggestion}} are off the page, we could redirect that and DYKsug to NewDYKnom. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes i am the owner of it, but I just placed the article for other people playing my game. I've had people type papers up on Itsy Produtions on other games I have played, So their for I believed that this would give people playing Saga Frontier a good opportunity to add what they notice about my company and what is good and bad about it. I like wise, with your consent was going to put a link to this article in my game on the special thanks. Please just give it a little while, and if nothing good comes (which will) then delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robert Kain Waller (talk • contribs)

It's my understanding that we want free images for the main page, including DYK. I was reviewing a candidate and came across this image. It appears to be the screenshot of a logo - is the license on this correct? It looks more like Fair Use. Your eyes would be appreciated. ^Law _shoot! 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to have your confirmation. Since you welcomed me to DYK, you have the burden of my questions, lol. I was curious about another DYK that was approved. Dexter_(episode) is approved as a new article, but looking at the history, is it technically new? Certainly looks recreated - so I'm wondering what exactly DYK considers to be a 'new article.' Thanks. ^Law _shoot! 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for answering that. ^Law _shoot! 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader here. I've added the fair use tag, but I was wondering if it's really necessary. This is the logo of a defunct company and as far as I understood the concept of a company's "perpetual lifetime," it only lasts until the company chooses to dissolve or has its charter revoked for failure to pay its fees. I had secured the permission of the "artist" (if you'll indulge me) who took the screenshot and I figured that was as close to full free permission as I was going to get without climbing into a time machine. Was this just an oversight or am I missing something critical? -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; my impression was the logos were non-free even if the company was defunct, but I could be wrong. This might be a good question to take to the fair use people at WT:Image use policy or WT:Fair use... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if St.GIGA was absorbed. I would assume the trademark is now held by another source. Definitely a question for someone with some copyright/image experience. ^Law _shoot! 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen! I didn't blank it! Maybe someone is on my account. But i didn't do it! TRUST ME! Nosebutton (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect someone else is using your account, then change your password to a secure one. • \ / (⁂) 05:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you currently online? I could do it now, but since I'm not entirely sure I understand the instructions, it might help if you were available to tell me if I missed something.

If you're not currently online, just give me a nudge next time you see me active, and we'll get it done then. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I know how it works - if you need some help with the documentation before Rjanag comes online I'll be here. • \ / (⁂) 06:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Rjanag, I added a section of code so the template can handle videos via the Template:DYK Watch template. • \ / (⁂) 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay Rjanag, I'll give it a go now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the instructions you left as well as I could. How does it look? Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes. Thanks for your hard work on this thing :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit confuses DYKsug with newDYKnomination (as I know now from trying to document this stuff). Although you tell us to use newDYKnomination, T:TDYK#Sample DYK suggestion strings still mentions DYKsug's creator and expander fields repeatedly, and says "Full details are at DYKsug". So, did you mean for this section to recommend newDYKnomination, DYKsug, or both? Art LaPella (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that; I just missed those. It should only be recommending {{NewDYKnom}}; I hope I've gotten it all cleaned out this time. Thanks for the heads-up, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Phoebe sings "A smelly cat~", well, while i think we can sing "smelly sock again~"[3]. I believe you catch the meaning. :)--Caspian blue 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just take the matter to Checkuser, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) who looked at the account. I think the register date, excessive interests of North Korea/South Korea/chaebeol/ Developed country, very familiar cliches like "highest technology/miraculous economic success blah blah../ and in-depth Wiki knowledge /pretending as an European etc would be good evidences.--Caspian blue 06:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting pissed off due to the obvious sock's edit (that is the main reason why I used to stop editing the article). Oh well, most of images are the sock's own images/or chosen images by his taste too. I hope the checkuser looks into the alleged Netherlander soon.--Caspian blue 07:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag and I have been cooperating to improve the South Korea article, and we need help. We don't agree about everything, but we've avoided edit wars. Rjanag is trying to soothe contentious edits; I'm researching references, documenting problems and suggesting changes. Our goal is to follow Antandrus' advice. Antandrus is an admin who did a quick, independent look at the article. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing mysterious. I just forgot to fill out the nominator= parameter. I'm not used to that, I guess, and in addition I'm used to not filling out the last parameter (which used to be image=). Punkmorten (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

while I'm here, I can add that it's update time for the template. Punkmorten (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work at DYK. I'm a creature of habit, so changes throw me for a bit, but I'm reassured that it's all part of a plan.  :) How's your mile time? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag! I was just curious as to how you edit a signature to make it look different than the original? Thanks in advance for your help! --=BlueFish35!^talk/_user 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to create links using <a href="http://website.wiki/">Visit Website.wiki</a>. By trying that, it was made apparent to me that some HTML markup cannot be used. If this is the case, do you know what HTML markup can and cannot be used?

I am most definately not trying to advertise using Wikipedia, I am aware that it is not a giant billboard for me to advertise on. However, the link is relevent to allowing users who need to contact me through my e-mail to do so by visiting my website. I prefer to keep my e-mail private, and so therefore a form on my website will allow users to contact me. If this is a big deal, I'd be more than happy to remove it.

Alright, I've enabled this, but is there a way that I can create a link to the form that will allow users to contact me? =BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not an alternate account of mine. Another person in my household uses/used that account when editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that would be a problem, but nonetheless, if it is it can most certainly be deleted. I created my own account to avoid messages of switching IPs, and to be more individualized. =BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I did indeed know about the templates, but my own personal philosophy is that most of what gets reverted is obviously vandalism, and a warning a vandal would be more work on my end that makes no difference. If it were up to me, bans would be handed out left and right, but apparently that's not the WP way... --Bagatelle (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You were faster with your revert for this diff to South Korea. The name of the Sea of Japan is an accepted Wikipedia naming convention, see Wikipedia naming conventions (Korean) Sea of Japan (East Sea). I was about to GFE that IP, but you were first. When the problem happens again, and it will, let's say "revert per WP:NC-KO#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea)". Is good? --Mtd2006 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I remembered reading a discussion on this somewhere, but couldn't remember the exact link. Your proposed edit summary looks like a good one to use whenever this issue pops up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I hope I am at the right place. I followed the instructions on the http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Dynamic_Category_Map for our wiki but it does not display any list. Could you help? Please leave you response on this page and I will view it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.23.134 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about this. You can try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical); just be sure to explain more clearly what you are trying to do. Good luck, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.23.134 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2009

I removed it because it has links to other articles. For an article about a person from a non-English speaking african country to have two links on the english wikipedia so early is pretty good. How many links do you need to stop being an orphan...?. I assumed it was one. This is a "missing african" article created at the request of wikipedians, I'm not sure it is very helpful to note its lack of parents. Victuallers (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb is usually three, but I'm not sure if that changes depending on how possible is is to add links to it in other articles... WikiProject Orphanage might know more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Apoc2400 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On 28 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Rare Disease Day, and National Organization for Rare Disorders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)