User talk:Rjanag/Archive9

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

请帮我移动这两个文章：

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just about one edit or making one change. You know very well that this particular one is a contentious change that has been argued about for weeks, and more than one editor has contested it. (One example, right before your revert.) You yourself have fought repeatedly [2][3] to add this, so you know it's opposed. You can't just, in your words, "waltz in" and make whatever edit you like when you know there is ongoing debate at the talk page about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet large scale changes and removals like this [4] by Zujine are perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that I contested it? And did you even see the argument on the talk page? The source is well attributed by NPOV standards, and yet Olaf insists on its removal by some fallacious argument that it is "a minority view", which he has yet proved. Yet he has no problem with adding Michael Savage's passing comments despite the fact that Savage has no expertize on the subject. If you're going to get involved at least be impartial and examine both sides.--PCPP (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• their website
• Articles on Baidu Baike[5] and Hudong[6]. (neither has references, though, so I don't know how directly useful they will be)
• very recent news article
• another article, this one seems to only have a passing mention though

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First warning regarding WP:Accusations of Bad Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Best

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

apparently it is. right, cheers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rjanag, with regard to above statements by User:DragonflySixtyseven about my edits, please see this comment by Gatoclass (talk · contribs), [7]. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

And for the record, I was trying to respond to the statements here when I got edit-conflicted and then Cirt moved the whole mess to AN. on [8] Please reference the appropriate diffs instead of ones partway through a conversation; otherwise you may unwittingly mislead participants in discussions. DS (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You originally did this...

{{wiktionary|ni hao}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Request for mediation concerning Turpan, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 7 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neuilly sa mère !, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are terrible!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

202.154.146.74 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

hey,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 2

Sorry, I stopped reading your reply after, "[you're] trying to take one person saying 'my friends are surprised I eat Oreos!" and extending that to "sweetness is disfavored in the East'".

I went and looked at the WP:SYN link, and you are correct--my edit was WP:SYN and you were right to delete it.

...but I really wasn't trying to extend one person's opinion of his friend's eating habits to those of all Asians.

The fact that you thought this is what my argument was is the reason my first response was rather terse.

So, I apologize for defending my edit, but please take more care to fully understand an argument before you represent it in caricature. Misrepresenting my point doesn't win points for you. Fleetham (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are terrible!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

146.163.61.154 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we continue the discussion here?

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

What's the difference between all of us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is a joke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re. Shixunci (talk · contribs)

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

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

Maybe you could add more?

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

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

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

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

Good day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a user ribbon you can use, see

— Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great work! LittleMountain5 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

Hi Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Rjanag,

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

In response to your comments:

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

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

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

I want to thank you for your warning[12] at Tbhotch's talk page. This is not the first time that this user has edit-warred on this article.[13][14][15][16] Hopefully, they take your warning seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salam again,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i deleted latin alphabet on xunhua salar county article

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

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

i have three sources which all say salar have used arabic script in the past for hundreds of years and in the present now, though its not official- [17] Two sources say they have arabic script, and that a pinyin based latin script was developed for them, but latin is barely used. Neither arabic nor latin is official, but judging from sources arabic is more common and has historical precedent. [18] [19] the latin script used in the articles was most certainly not the one created in china based on pinyin, it looked like someone copied and pasted the Turkish alphabet or Azerbaijani alphabet and applied it to salar- [20] [21]. Therefore it is really unsourced.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

--俠刀行 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tourette’s Syndrome “Biological” Jackass.

Sir/Maám,
I am handing this to you because the Talk page for Tourette’s Syndrome been locked. (Gee, I can’t imagine how that happened.) Ironically enough I was only looking for more info ont eh “social stigma” section of the article. I chose you at random from contributors I could identify.
Tourettes IS a physiological state; The exact location of the part of DNA where it ‘lives’ (for lack of a better word) is in fact known. That this whole ridiculousness began well after the Human Genome was mapped suggests (in fact insists) that this is someone with an axe to grind.
I have NEVER agreed with Wikipedia’s “consensus” policy (there was a time when “consensus” stated, quite definitively, that the world was flat). That said, every single expert in the field agrees it IS biological, including experts in related fields that do NOT specialize in TS, and do not care about it in any way shape or form.
That it is listed in DSRM is not relevant to what it is and where it comes from. Homosexuality used to be listed; Lycanthropy was not. Now it is inverse. This is because the DSRM, for all its importance, is not omnsciens and was never intended to be; It was intended to be used only as another tool (just like a stethoscope and that hammer thing they hit your knees with).97.120.235.182 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

1. Talk:Tourette syndrome is not locked.
2. I don't know what you're talking about unless you specifically point to what part of the article (that is to say, a specific sentence or paragraph) that you think needs to be changed.
3. I don't know what the "DSRM" is, are you trying to refer to the DSM? In any case, lycanthropy is certainly not listed in the DSM. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Well, it can't be edited. (shrug)
2. I'm responding to the overall theme; Mr 198.184.150.254 (the guy who first commented) is an idiot, and his axe-grinding is malisious dis-information.
3. Oops, I did mean DSM; Lycanthorpy was at one point... I guess it's out again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.235.182 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the discussion I assume you're referring to took place two years ago, so I'm not sure why you feel it's necessary to bring up now. Secondly, it is a discussion on the talk page and not part of the article itself; if you are not here to suggest a concrete change to the article then there is nothing for me to discuss. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Thompson,

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

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

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

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

Or not. There may be a blind reversion coming by another user, but have placed reasons on Talk Page for changes - [22]. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need your help

Please have a look:Talk:Barbarians in East Asian cultures#Requested move and help move the page back to it's original name? Arilang ^talk 02:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you were edit warring: [23][24][25]. It doesn't matter if he was right or not (for what it's worth, I looked over his edits at other pages and some were appropriate and some not; he has since been warned about making these changes without discussing); edit warring is not appropriate either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Chzz  ►  06:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• AfD for the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Rjanag/Archive9,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you've dealt with both me and Arilang1234 before

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

look at the section now- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Lead_section

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

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

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

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

Arilang1234 attempting wikilawyering and making threats when he was caught trolling

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

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

false accusations

Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ambassador,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy there with the templates, cowboy -- I have not been involved in the can-Joseon-be-tagged-as-WP:CHINA edit war, at all. Here are the only edits I've made to the page in the last week: [26] [27] [28] Please remove your edit from my talk page and apologize. Jpatokal (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Rjanag. You made this edit recently: [29]. I agree. There are multiple issues that are needing to deal with. I will start a discussion section on the talkpage. Your input is welcome. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, found the problem, the ending of the includeonly tag needs to be on the same line as the last bracket. See [30] for the code. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, Tony1 found a quote I pulled from a NYT editorial useful.[31] Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

--俠刀行 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it really possible that my wonderful article about Uppsala's Botanical Garden got zero hits on July 12 when it was at DYK? [32] And zero hits yesterday July 13 as well? Sharktopus wonders if he needs to change his brand of toothpaste to become more popular. Sharktopus ^talk 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical stuff

The problem is getting both a ✔/✘ and a sig or nickname to show up. Basically, it's not possible to get the template to do automatically in a way that is convenient for the user. What would be ideal would be something like this:

1)

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

to create

2)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✘ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)

But this doesn't work well. Instead, you get

3)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)	✘ n rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)

In other words, it can make a ✔ or ✘ based on the first letter you put into the template, but it's still going to show everything (not just the sig, but also the text before it). If it's going to do that, I'm not sure this is a major improvement over Tony's, because the whole point of this template was to serve as a quick reference, not to just write comments with signatures (which can be done in regular discussion, without any template or checklist at all).

But because of limitations in WP's parser functions, the only way to implement the ideal table above is

4)

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

which I think is too much of a pain to be worth the effort.

Another option would be to just sign checklist items without adding ✔ or ✘. In essence, then, a signature would mean "good to go on this thing" and a lack of signature would mean "not good" or "not checked" (we'd lose what I see as a benefit of version (2), which is that there's a clear distinction between items that have been identified as bad and items that have not been checked yet). So we'd have something that looks like (5), generated by code (6):

5)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)		rʨanaɢ (talk)

6)

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

This is one option. The other option (basically the original template, before I tried adding sigs) is just not to include a signature. As I explained above, I don't think signatures in the table necessary, given discussion below the table, but some people might disagree with that.

7)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✘	✔

6)

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

These are the various options that I think are available. (Also, of course, I can divide the template into hook and article checklists as discussed above; I think these issues need settled first, though.) Basically, I don't feel like I can go ahead with this until there is an agreement on just what the template should be used for and just how it should be used. In particular, the issue of whether or not to include signatures depends on how people imagine the template being used. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation - turns out this is more complicated than I expected!

I'm undecided right now, but I'm leaning toward the "sig only" method. It's not as pretty as the ticks and crosses method, but I'm thinking it would be more practical. Though I'm a proponent of the view that if one starts a review one should finish it, in practice I know this frequently doesn't occur for all sorts of reasons. And since a large part of the rationale behind these templates is increasing accountability, it's hard to see how an anonymous line of ticks and crosses is going to achieve that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Samples

Personally I think the signatures don't need to be in the box if someone leaves a note in the discussion saying, e.g., "I did a spot-check for plagiarism and it looks ok; I marked it off in the checklist above". But I agree others might not see it the same way.

Here's a sample for an imaginary two-article hook:

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

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

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

How does that look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How about just putting a simple "X" in place of a sig for fields which have failed? I'm thinking that if fields are just left blank, reviewers won't know at a glance which fields have been checked and which not, which may slow down reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good solution for that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I'm no sure I like this format. Having the hook and article in separate boxes, as well as having separate review boxes for each article, makes this take up about as much space as Tony's checklist. I think having a single checklist for all articles would be fine (you simply wouldn't sign something off until it had been checked in all articles); likewise, I think the hook issues could then be part of the same template (they could always have a slightly different background color or something to separate them out). rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the amount of space taken up by Tony's checklist, which is not only considerably longer IMO but which also encourages more extended commentary. I think we are going to need separate lists for hook and article because of alt hooks and multinoms. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was hoping, and in fact I proposed,[36] that you would include one of your own proposed table-checklist forms in the DYK review template that you created. It would be a mature and helpful step on your part toward peaceful consensus at WT:DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just recently been done (in response to some people's pointing out that the links to completed noms were unneeded, made both them and the section headers disappear when an article is promoted/rejected), although it won't actually start showing up for a while.

As for the archiving, I haven't done anything yet because I haven't really gotten any feedback on it (other than the two comments from you and Crisco, and Sandy's repeated instance that there must be an archive or the world will end, even though she keeps ignoring messages or questions I send her about the archive issue). I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, I'd just like to get feedback from more people before doing so, and I'm starting to lose confidence in the usefulness of WT:DYK for anything but drama recently. I've posted so many threads looking for constructive feedback about real issues and gotten almost no response, but the moment some idiot comes around shouting in all caps about something silly or just wanting to insult people then suddenly everyone has something to say... rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess I'll post a thread asking for opinions about this archiving thing now. I'll do that before posting the thread about the review checklist I mentioned on your page; I know it needs to be done, but I haven't really been eager to do it lately because I know as soon as a few particular people show up it's just going to turn into a big drama fest with a bunch of people insulting each other. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they didn't wait, they started insulting each other pre-emptively :)

Can I delete the links which were put there for the archives at T:TDYK now? They are adding a lot to page clutter and I'm keen to get rid of them. Also, can I delete the instructions regarding the archiving at the top of the page? It appeared from the discussion at T:TDYK that nobody wants to retain the date archiving method. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I already deleted the mention of archives (in the comments at the top of each date header), and changed the instructions (so now they're no longer instructions for archiving, but instructions for removing a day). Are we thinking of different things? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we must be. I'm talking about all the links left behind after an article is either promoted or rejected. I don't see that they serve any purpose if they're not being archived and they are what is creating all the clutter at T:TDYK. They also screw up the queue summary table because the code thinks they are still live discussions. I want to get rid of these links so I can keep track of just how many noms and verifications we have at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I don't see anything wrong with removing those. It should be possible by doing this to all the old nom discussions: basically, removing the stuff from the <includeonly> to </includeonly>, and moving that whole chunk of stuff (from {{#if:yes to the end of the archive message) up above the header. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a quicker solution, I can just remove the noms themselves like this. This won't be necessary in the future, but I ca do it now just to clean up the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK looks so much better now, thanks! However, there seems to be one small problem remaining, some of the earlier hooks are still turning up, like William A. Caldwell for instance. I tried deleting them but can't do so as their appearance seems to have been coded somehow. Any chance you could fix this? Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, some older noms will end up like this. The easiest way to deal with them right now (other than letting them sit and be removed when the whole date is removed) would just be to un-transclude them from T:TDYK itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I got them all.[37] I must say I really like this new system of separate nom pages, looks like I was wrong to resist this idea when it was brought up in the past. T:TDYK is very short and manageable now, and there are no problems with edit conflicts or moving headers anymore!

BTW I noticed when giving those old noms the flick a few minutes ago that there seems to be a number of different edit links on the page now, there is "edit nomination page", "Edit nom - Article history" and "Review or comment - Article history". Presumably you are responsible for these? Which is the latest version? I think I prefer the latter. Would it be possible though to include these links on the same line as the header? It would save quite a bit of space. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, those links are my fault, I kept changing my mind or updating them every few hours one day. The most recent one is the "Review or comment - Article history". (And I don't know if there are any multi-noms on the page right now, but if there are they look slightly different, like this...I put the article history links on a separate line for multi-noms because I thought it might look cluttery to have a lot of history links on the same line with the other links, although I'm not sure now).

I haven't really tried it but I think putting the links with the header might be awkward. I thought about trying that (similar to the edit links in the headers at T:DYK/Q but, since the links are made by a template, I have a filling it would mess up people's ability to click a section link from an edit summary or article history and get to the right section. Another thing I've thought about is making the links into some sort of "toolbox" (similar to the "previous AfDs for this article" box at AfD, or the toolbox at FACs) on the right-hand side of the nom, but that would compete for space with the image in noms that have images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A toolbox sounds a little like overkill to me, unless you were planning on adding additional doodads to it. And yes, it would compete with images for space. But it sounds as if you are giving plenty of thought to these issues so I think I'll leave you to it, at least until you do something I have an issue with :) BTW, I suggested at WT:DYK that we add one of your checklists to the nom template to trial it (see the "Next step" discussion if you haven't already), but I thought it might be best to leave it for a few days as I think everyone is a bit tired of all the changes and we could probably all use a few days' break. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could answer this. I created the secondary account User:Joe Chill Secondary. I was wondering how I can get rid of the new Wikipedia view on that account. I changed it on my main account because I found it awful and I forgot how to. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin complained about me using it to welcome editors with templates and was assuming bad faith. I removed the user page. I was just trying to be helpful. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the page layout? That is changed in Special:Preferences; click the "Appearance" tab and select "Monobook" (that's the old skin, t he new skin is Vector). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your other question: no, there's nothing wrong with using a different account for something like this, as long as it's clear the account is yours and you don't use it for anything that could be perceived as sockpuppeting or votestacking. Since it seems you only used the account for welcoming new users, that shouldn't be a problem. It's not necessary to have such an account, but having such an account is not against the rules either. Other editors have their own opinions about welcome templates and stuff, but adding welcome templates isn't against the rules; all they can say is that they don't like it, they can't punish you for adding the templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the DYK nomination. -- James26 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

A pod suggestion for you: Cognitive Psychology

Hi Rjanag! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I thought you'd be a good fit for this one: Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/Cognitive_Psychology_(Greta_Munger). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, I have noticed that although some promoted/rejected noms are no longer appearing on T:TDYK, their templates still exist on the page. For example, on August 12 there are only five noms remaining, but in the edit window there are still 16 noms listed. Is this WAD, or something you have overlooked? If it's WAD, we may have to add something to the instructions with regards to the promotion/rejection procedure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is intentional. I wanted to minimize the number of edits needed to promote hooks, so all promoting happens from the subpage itself (promoting the subpage causes it to become invisible on T:TDYK); otherwise I think it would have been a pain for people assembling preps to have to not only copy hooks and credits from a subpage and paste them to the prep, but also open another window to find the templates on T:TDYK and remove them. The idea is then that the templates won't show up at all on T:TDYK, and they can all be removed together when all the noms in that day are resolved; people doing the promoting or rejecting never have to worry about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I thought they might need to be removed to make the DYK table on the queue page work properly, but I guess Shubinator is going to have to completely rewrite that to make the table work with the new system anyhow.

The T:TDYK instructions however still include the following statement: On Template talk:Did you know, it replaces the full discussion with just a link to the discussion, indicating that the discussion is no longer active. I think that is redundant now isn't it? In which case you won't mind if I remove it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that part should be updated now that we got rid of those leftover "promoted by..." links. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw this recent sampling of quickie review summaries: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Depth_of_review. Could you please soon add some review guideline of some kind to the nomination template? Sharktopus ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look back at those older discussions and make an executive decision about which version to use (or which versions to trial). I'll try to have a look soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -- and also of course for all the work you have already done on this. Sharktopus ^talk 01:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the user talk. The guy who undid the last two times it is a wiki-undo-stalker with an personal vendetta. He offers no positive help or reason why he undo's things, so I gave it no weight. The edit prior said that my intro had some typo's so I corrected them. I really could care less. There was flag on top of the current into that I am about to put back up there saying that it was inadequate and didn't comply. Tried to help, but oh well. God Bless. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Thought they were previous articles that were broken. Will be more careful. Thanks!

Could you take a look at the ORIGINAL Rodney King edit and assess whether that flag needs to be removed, per discussion notes. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, I've fixed the referencing for GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup at Template:Did you know nominations/GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup. Is it ready to be passed? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It still needs to be reviewed; I just noticed a referencing issue, I didn't do a full review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. BTW: since when has the kind of nomination (expanded, new, BLPx2) stopped being entered into the template? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from the preload a couple days ago [38] because I thought it's probably not needed in most cases (once a reviewer opens the history it should be obvious whether they're looking at a new creation or an expansion, and in the rare cases where it's not obvious--such as a move from userspace--the user can leave a |comment=). I figured I'd try to make nominators fill out as little stuff as possible. It's still possible to specify the |status= when nominating and it behaves as usual; it's just not required. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I worry for all those articles that have sat in user space for a while before being moved to article space; even when its pointed out it can be overlooked. Thanks for all the work on the template. Works great! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the template used at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde Tavern (Iowa). The Neutrality part says that it is a bit weasely, but the reviewer fixed it himself. The Interest area is blank. I have no idea if it is a pass or not and what to make of the template. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It can't be passed until all areas have a green check. If an area is blank, you are free to review it or check it itself; if an area has a concern (e.g., "a bit weasely") but the concern has since been addressed, you are free to remove that concern and replace it with your own green check (using the code that is already included there inside the <!- -> marks.

I haven't yet gotten around to writing up clear instructions on the usage of this template because, to be honest, I haven't even finished making the template yet. I didn't really get much feedback on the questions I had when designing it, and I didn't expect that people would be using it now when we haven't yet reached an agreement on how the template should be made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I only came here to say that I use the templates (Template:DYK article checklist and Template:DYK hook checklist) as they are as good as anything that allows me to be sure that all the critical points have been addressed. I like it because it's visual, concise, and encapsulates all the points. As to the two boxes I left blank in my review, I'm a bit unsure as to the credentials of the Sterns, but I just assumed that they were fairly well regarded but local food boffins. I'm a bit wary of the use of passive voice, but this still exists in the hook, which is what that problem was referring to. I'm not sure how that can be addressed, or whether that's the usual DYK way of creating 'interest'. I found the hook marginally interesting, so I left it blank in case anybody wanted to express their opinion for or against. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• You are quite right, sorry I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Do you think the district map would be an appropriate image then to go with the DYK?--Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think it's not a great image to use; it's not actually an illustration of the subject of the article, it's just an illustration that is somewhat related. Plus, it doesn't show up well at small size. Some DYKs are just better without images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry about moving the template. --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your info. Will i have to repost the DYK? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it was suggested we put feedback on the issue of what template to use here? I do appreciate your trying to come up with templates to satisfy the mandate of the RfC (which I never even saw, I was staying away from that awful discussion page at the time on principle). The trouble is I don't really have any preference, except insofar as both of the alternatives I've seen you put forward in the last couple of weeks are relatively unmassive and therefore vastly preferable IMO to Tony1's. I'd really rather the use of templates in reviews be the reviewer's choice. Some people like them, some people don't, I don't consider the RfC to have been a very good expression of the feelings of those who have to do Quid Pro Quo reviews but if it's going to stand, I understand what it actually said was that reviews must explicitly refer to all the items on a list that amounted to Wikipedia policy plus DYK policy, so I see no reason why that should compel all reviewers to do it either with a checklist template or without one. But I genuinely don't have much of a preference when it comes to deciding between your templates - which is why I have never spoken up when you've asked. So there's my feedback, pretty useless though it is :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further to my comment above, as a reviewer, and as somebody who occasionally looks over reviews, I prefer the presence of a template such as yours to no template. The lack of a review template makes me uncertain what work has been done by a previous reviewer and what remains to be done. I guess Tony's template looks more intimidating, but the work behind it works out to be the same because you can't skate over or fudge the requirements any more. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, please review the DYK again as I added the statement to the most appropriate place I could find within the article. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I know this probably sounds stupid, but can you explain to me what exactly fivefold means?--Dom497 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is all explained in the DYK rules. To put it simply: if for example an article is 1,000 characters long, to nominate it for DYK you'd have to expand it until it's 5,000 or more. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's useful to bring this up a day after the fact, when the discussion is already long since over. And I'm quite aware that I was insulting that user, but if you actually read the rest of the discussion you will better understand what's going on. No offense, but I don't pay a lot of attention to "warnings" based on comments taken out of context by people who are more interested in playing "spot the bad words" than taking the time to actually read the surrounding discussion. Anyone who actually does read the surrounding discussion will easily see that that user was trolling, was being deliberately stubborn (i.e., pretending not to understand a simple concept) just to prolong an argument, and had no intention to contribute anything of value. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would assume I didn't read the whole conversation. I don't agree that Malleus was "trolling". Have you read WP:NOTTHEM recently? I see you have never been blocked. I don't think I have ever blocked another admin. Let's both try to keep these records, ok? --John (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know not to use symbols I did not know that. I understand that the hook may not appeal to all refers interests so I shall add some alternative hooks some time today or tomorrow, in order for a consensus can be reached as to which one is most appropriate. Please suggest an alternative hooks if you think of any.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to take this here. I understand you've worked very hard to make change at DYK and I've said multiple times that the new page templates are a fantastic edition. Can you please give me diffs of where I was insulting. I don't generally try to insult people and if I was I'd apologize. First though, I'd need to know what I'm apologizing for. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you both suggested that I don't respond to anyone's requests or concerns regarding proposed changes, and that I was "shooting down" someone's idea when really I was just trying to point out what I saw as legitimate concerns (which I consider a way of respecting and acknowledging an idea; if I just wanted to shoot it down I would have said it was a ridiculous idea, which I don't think it was). I am not looking for apologies, though, and I understand that maybe you didn't realize what you were saying, so let's just forget about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not at all meant as an insult and I knew exactly what I was saying. I think you're taking this a little too personally - you've done a lot to respond to criticism, but maybe stepping back a bit and letting others make suggestions and bounce them around wouldn't do any harm. As for forgetting about it - now I know that I've spent two years wasting my time, because improvement isn't what Wikipedia is about, so might take me a little while to get over that. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've made a similar lament on your userpage. Please try to keep in mind that DYK does not represent all of Wikipedia; while I have been repeating that improvement is not the primary aim of DYK, I never made any such claims about Wikipedia in general. It's simply unfair of you to say that Wikipedia lacks incentive for improvement just because DYK is not one of them; if you quit because of that, I'm sure it will be a net loss to the encyclopedia, but it will also be entirely your own fault. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If I quit it's because I've spent over two years of my time to improve articles and I haven't gotten into the reward game of creating new articles. If I quit, it's because I realize how monumentally stupid I am. If I quit, go ahead and tell yourself that it hasn't anything to do with a single thing you might have said to me if it makes you feel better. I'll take the responsibilty - I have only myself to blame. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't simultaneously say you're above the "reward game" because you don't create new articles, and go around saying at other pages (I can see your contribs, you know), that you don't like DYK because it's not rewarding your work. Why not just admit that you apparently have no problem with reward culture, you just wish you were getting rewards for what you do (and instead of taking your work to a project like GA where it will get rewarded, you insist that you get your reward from DYK for whatever reason). Because that's honestly the impression I'm getting from your comments; here you say you're not in "the reward game" but elsewhere you're saying the problem with DYK is it doesn't reward your kind of work, and even though I have told you several times that you could get recognition for your efforts through GA you keep insisting that you want your reward to come from DYK instead. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can agree to drop this without hard feelings. I'm not articulating well what I'm trying to say and I think we're talking past each other. And again, I do appreciate the work you've done at DYK. I for one think it's much easier to navigate and submit a nomination. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that I suggested hours ago that we should drop it, I'm obviously fine with that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For doing so much so well and for so long to improve Wikipedia, whether you want to agree that you're improving it or not! The encyclopedia is better because of you and your work. Now, if only we could make all of the people happy all of the time, I am sure you could figure out some way to put that in code. Sharktopus talk 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You edited (removed) a change I made recently, and I appreciate that you are helping improve the quality of the site. Given that there are few rewards for your hard work, I thought I would say thanks. Your edit was helpful, and I will know better next time.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.239.242 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? Your addition in of itself isn't wrong, it's just that information like that needs a more reliable source (blog sources are usually not acceptable for negative information about negative people). If you can look up, for instance, a newspaper article where this was reported (there is probably one linked from the Shanghaiist post; I haven't looked carefully) that would probably be acceptable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, in fact, confuse you with another editor, I have struck the incorrect commentary, and I most sincerely apologize for the serious mistake and any resulting discomfort to you. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Comfort Momoh DYK. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag. Could you help me delete a few sandboxes that I'm no longer working on? The list is here on top of my user page. If you don't have time, just let me know, and I will ask another admin to help. On a different subject, I think we're getting close to a solution at Joseon Dynasty, where you have been an indefatigable and incredibly patient mediator. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for all your hard work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Could you please restore my "Chronology of the Boxer Uprising"? I think you deleted it by mistake along with "Chronology of the Boxer Rebellion"! Thank you and all the best, Madalibi (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You show great tenacity as an editor and in disputes which I much admire you for. Not to mention being a major asset to DYK and a top editor. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjanag - I recently implemented Middle Chinese into the {{chinese}} template with successful results. However, I was subsequently informed that the "Middle Chinese" header is showing up in the template even when the Middle Chinese tag isn't called in the wikitext. I've gone through the code and tinkered a bit but haven't been able to see what the problem is. As a template-newb, I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at it and see if you can point me in the right direction. I'm guessing it's a minor adjustment that I didn't make in some field.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disregard. I seem to have fixed the problem myself by adding one....simple....pipe character "|".  White Whirlwind  咨  22:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that did it. Without the pipe character, {{{mc}}} shows up (from the template's point of view) as just that when |mc= is left blank, so the template thinks something is there; with the pipe, if someone leaves |mc= blank then that becomes blank, so the template understands that nothing is there. It's easy to miss those tiny details (in the past I've often spent hours trying to find some complicated way to fix a template problem before realizing I was just missing a } or | or something). Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to Tom Skinner. I took particular care to rewrite all of the information that was taken from the DNZB site - none of it was "word-for-word", and all of it easily passes most academic tests for what can be considered copyright violation. I would advise you to check more carefully before excising work that has deliberately been rewritten to pass WP standards. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that bad writing is bad. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it seems that Pete and I both used the same primary source. Our writing styles always were similar. No wonder it looked like plagiarism. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not buying that. I know plagiarism when I see it. It's obvious that you started from one source, copied and pasted it, and then went through later changing words here and there. I don't believe some crazy coincidence that you and some other author both happened to paraphrase Skinner's autobiography the same way, especially given that up until a couple hours ago you had not cited that autobiography as a source in the article; you only did so after I pointed out your plagiarism. And I don't appreciate your earlier demand that I apologize for stating the obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe it or not. It's simply the truth. I'd get Pete to confirm the problems we've had with the past, but he's not on WP, and even if he was you probably wouldn't believe him either, No matter. It's been fun being on Wikipedia these past few years, both as an editor and as an administrator, but I cannot put myself in a position where one person decides that they can slander me - my professional standing as a writer is such that comments of this nature cannot be ignored. I'll; leave you to your little games and stop working on Wikipedia. If you wish, you can check the other 2000 articles I have started and 160000 edits I have made, in case you can find some evidence of plagiarism in them as well. If you do, feel free to delete the articles. They are no longer of any importance. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I already explained the problem at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner. Your own story doesn't match comments you made at another editor's talk page or your editing behavior before I reviewed the article. I'm just calling a duck a duck. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it exactly agrees with what I wrote at Schwede's page. I rewrote everything I took from the site you mentioned, as I said to Schwede. That you later found something that was similar to that site indicates clearly that I didn't take it from there. Similarly, who would I ask you for any section containing three or four words in a row which agreed with that website if there were section which I had copied but left intact? Neither of these things suggests that I took these pieces from that site - quite the opposite. But that's as may be. If you prefer to assume bad faith and consider me a plagiarist and a liar, this will mean little to you. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag for identifying the plagiarist known as Grutness. His contributions have been a concern to me for a long time. Could you also look at the articles of Schwede66 on NZ politicians of the 19th century all his entries seem to be lifted (taken word-for-word) from the Cyclopedia of New Zealand (circa 1906). The wording is Mr so & so married a daughter of the late Mr this & that. Which is OK when it was written contemporaneous with the subject in 1902 but sounds silly in a Wikipedia entry two hundred years later in 2011! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagstaff1 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I obviously don't know who the ill-mannered sock puppet Flagstaff1 is, but to make it easier for you to follow up on the allegations, all my new and expanded articles are listed on this page. Schwede66 04:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of following up on that. I'm not here to do witchhunts; I pointed out what looked like plagiarism when it was placed in front of me, but I'm not going to go around looking for it when I have no reason to suspect it.

Flagstaff1, whoever you are, any editor is welcome to review any other editor's contributions. If you find specific instances of concerning wording you are welcome to notify me or anybody else; you don't need to be an administrator to point out concerns in any article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag, so far I have got 23 examples of Schwede66 plagiarism-but this task is ongoing as he produces them daily! He seems to copy word-for-word articles on 19th Century NZ politicians from the Cyclopedia of New Zealand. Schwede66 has reverted to personal attack & has asked Gadfium to shut me down. It is a real shame that 'writers' like him exist as it effects the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I am happy to go through all his articles over time & correct them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagstaff1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Grutness. A dozen sources were posted in the AfD for New Zealand Young Farmers and Grutness seemed happy about him expanding it in the AfD. I nominated it for DYK thinking that he is an admin with good article experience so I just nominated it without looking at his non-existent job of sourcing the article. Yes, I did fuck up and I admitted that in the DYK nomination but my point is that I think that he is a liar in response to his contributions - Template:Did you know nominations/New Zealand Young Farmers. He has since blanked his user page and posted on his user page that he will stop editing. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, could you take a look at what I posted at Talk:Tom Skinner? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that some editors were transcluding DYK noms on articles' talk pages (similar to GA reviews), and wondered if maybe there could be a better way to do this. I put together User:Gyrobo/DYK nom as a test case. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in using that, although I don't see a problem with not using it either. (I'm not sure how it's "better", in that it produces the same code that is given to nominators in their editnotice, the only difference I can see being that {{subst:User:Gyrobo/DYKnom|some title}} would be a little bit shorter to copy and paste). People posting to the article talk page is not a fluke; the instructions encourage it (they don't require it, although some editors think they should). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for that discussion, then. This seems like a job for DYKBot. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What I do is just provide a link to the nomination on the talk page until it appears, then it comes with the DYK notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you really template a editor that's been here since 2004 and threaten a block? WTF? That's idiotic. RxS (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just a bit of an annoyance to me, but... please link your signature to your userpage, instead of only your contributions and talk. I wanted to see it today, but I had to go to your talk page first to arrive at it. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My signature used to be like that, but I felt that my user page is less useful than my talk page and contribs; it's still easy enough to access and I think being able to get to someone's talk page or contribs with one click serves more purpose than being able to get to their userpage in one click. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is common to use this style of templating. See {{BAFTA Best Film}}, {{Palme d'Or}}, {{Academy Award Best Original Screenplay}}, and {{Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama}}. The point is to reduce the number of links while providing the same detail by a linked network of templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I read your bio on the ambassador mentor roster. I think you might be interested in this ANI thread, and I am optimistic that you might provide assistance.[40]--My76Strat (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. User:Melonbarmonster2 blanked the edit already discussed in that talk page without any discussion. Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall having any previous involvement in this article; if you think Melonbarmonster is edit warring, your best option would probably be to mention him at AN3 and mention his block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You are awarded this Barnstar for diligent protection of the rules of Wikipedia. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you're most likely more familiar with linguistics than I am, for the Korean particles article, what is your view on the writing systems that we can and can't use? There's another dispute by a rather persistent editor that's engaging in slow edit-warring, and though I've tried to get them to discuss the issue per WP:BRD, they're refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just glancing at the edits, I think there's no reason for him to remove the Hanja... the slow edit warring reminds me of what was going on at Joseon Dynasty (although at least it's just one editor here), I think now that there's a discussion at the talk page it would be fair to warn him and then report him if he keeps reverting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well two more reverts later and I've had enough. I've taken it to ANI, and I hope that this will be the end of it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. I am thinking that our article on Language should be an FA, would you like to help me with this? I think a section on language and the brain would be an excellent and necessary addition. It should summarize the current knowledge of Neurolinguistics and be about the same length as the section on language and culture. I am asking other Language specialists for help as well on writing sections for the article on their topics of specialization. I think the article deserves to be better. Thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, that seems like a great idea. In the past I have been hesitant to do much with that article other than monitor for vandalism, because it seemed like just too big a topic to handle. But a collaborative effort just might make it possible. I'd be happy to work on drafting a section about language and the brain (at the same time, I also have to do a lot of updating of the Neurolinguistics article. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

??? 8-/ Skarebo (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I had meant to revert to one revision earlier than that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your help. Now you've done part of the job at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook. Will you finish with "In your edit summary, please indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to." or can I do that? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have reviewed the hook, you have not promoted it (and you should not; it is best to let hooks be promoted by different editors than the ones who reviewed them). Please review WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For persistent, quality work at DYK (including fixing a mistake I made). Noleander (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would just undo them all. Maybe you could do the rest? John Smith's (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the ref to these articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rjanag! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

That was the first time had nominated an article, can you elaborate the nomination was never completed properly. So that next time I can do it better. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The instructions are at T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination. You didn't complete them (specifically, step 3). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Following your review, I shortened the hook to 192 characters. Thanks for your help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please review the punchier, pithier version?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for marking the length problem as "resolved".

Would you please consider reviewing the whole DYK?

(The C.A. Patrides article is short and very well referenced, imho.)

Thanks!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about "Template:Did you know nominations/Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor", which I nominated. You have just closed with the remark "Submission was never completed." Do you mean that I didn't complete the submission in some way (in which case, what did I do wrong?), or that no one bothered to review it and it's now too old (which I couldn't have done anything about)? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It means you didn't complete it—you never nominated it. See the DYK instructions, which you should have read beforehand; you never did step 3. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear! I thought I did. Can anything be done about that now? This was a student project. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not really anything that can be done. You are welcome to ask about it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, the DYK project's discussion page, but when other editors have made this mistake recently the general consensus has been not to review the articles that are over a month old. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem then. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if you twice assume that I haven't read the article in question, it does sound like prejudice. Would you really prefer that the quantity of shoddy English, misreported claims and breaches of MoS that appear in the Prep and Queue areas appear on the Main Page? If there were any rigour in the examination of hooks at an earlier stage, this would not be necessary, but in the absence of that, I will retain an interest in trying to making the MP as error free as I can. Kevin McE (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. Could you take a minute to help me move Manchu Conquest to Manchu conquest over the redirect, please? "Conquest" is clearly a common noun that should not be capitalized. I posted a more detailed reasoning and "ngram" evidence at Talk:Manchu Conquest#Move to "Manchu conquest". Thank you for your help! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, there is a straw poll going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools. Your input would be much appreciated. P.s. I am sending you this message based on your heavy involvement in DYK, rather than at random. I hope this is ok. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I fear I have taken on too much. Your template advice would be most, most, most, most welcome. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Rjanag, a note per request: commons:User_talk:Rjanag#File:Uyghurprotest_DC_1.jpg Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag,

Your comment about signing my posts is noted. Thanks for the tip.

--Tjo3ya (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

很久不见，幕尼黑啤酒馆暴动那篇写错字，快帮我把错误的编辑摘要删除。谢谢。--俠刀行 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

什么条目？连接呢？ rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• 幕尼黑啤酒馆暴动 Beer Hall Putsch‎.--俠刀行 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 哪有错误？ rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• 看不懂吗？我的编辑摘要英文文法写错了，把它删除掉。--俠刀行 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If admins deleted every edit summary with grammar or spelling mistakes, they'd have a lot to do. Just leave it, we all make mistakes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

什麽？他在说啥？／えっ？意味が分からないんです。

No understand, please speak Chinese or Japanese. Closely. Thank you very much.--俠刀行 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

你是说这个摘要？我们不会因为小语法错误删除摘要。

此外，我已经跟你说过，如果你不愿意用英语跟其他的编辑交流，你最好不要参加英语维基百科。可以移动至中文维基百科. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• 是，之前就知道了。在这儿也只是跨语言连结和插图罢了，至於交流什麽的，以後就麻烦了。谢谢！--俠刀行 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia has a nofollow policy in place.

The External links that I provided are interviews with these creators that I have taken the time to interview. It is in the interest of their fans (or anyone for that matter) to hear what these creators have to say.

These creators have taken the time to do these interviews and I have taken the time to interview them and get this content posted, for free, onto the internet.

There are other resources like ComixTalk and Newsrama that have posted interviews they have had from creators on for instance, Multiplex wiki article. Why shouldn't the interviews that I have with Gordon be in that same section?

While these interviews do not have any text based transcriptions, they will very soon.

I've seen MP3s links in Phil Foglio's Girl Genius articles as well from TalkShoe, are you saying that those are of neutral nature as well?

Any content that is provided by the creators, for all purposes, should be made available to all. That is what I do and what TGT Media is. I wanted to showcase, as I have for the past 3 years, these creative and talented people.

If I have overstepped in any way, then I apologize. How can this be resolved?

KurtSasso (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The problem, Kurt, is that you have a severe conflict of interest, since it's to your advantage to have TGT linked to in as many places as possible, nofollow or no nofollowl. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As Orangemike explained, the problem is that you are putting up multiple links to your own site. If the links are useful, someone else will add them; if you put up many links to your own site it looks like spamming. I haven't had the time myself to look closely at the links and determine whether or not they're useful additions to the articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

--- I wouldn't take the time to interview these people, only to not put up useful content. Similar to the volunteers for this website you are taking the time to make sure the content is as accurate as it can be. Creative people are giving their knowledge and experiences on TGT. If I was physically editing the articles to state false or fraudulent claims I could understand the need to edit. I have over 400 interviews in both Audio and Video.

RE: conflict of interest: Orange Mike, then any website that has media, news or otherwise (see: ComixTalk, Newsrama) would be also in violation of that. However, because they are a brand that has built up a reputation for solid content and articles, those conflicts are overlooked. It would seem like this comes back to an 'all or nothing' approach using your own guidelines and documentation. Either any website that has created text-based, or audio based or video based interviews, should not post any external links or be used as references since there is a conflict of interest.KurtSasso (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the concern. Those other websites weren't added to Wikipedia by the same people who create the website. The problem arises when you add links to your own website. That's what conflict of interest means on Wikipedia.

I understand it's a shame when people don't know about a site which would be useful for them. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spreading awareness of your site, no matter how good the site may be. Links can only be added to an article in order to improve the article (within Wikipedia's guidelines), not to get more people to know about a site. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In using your words, "Links can only be added to an article in order to improve the article (within WIkipedia's guidelines)" Yet, Wikipedia's guidelines are conflicting in that sense. When a person has a focus to showcase, not the site, but the content (for which content is what Wikipedia is built upon), about a creator(s) that's considered spam/conflict. This was and has never been about linking to the TGT site. With all of this patient explaining you have given me, for which I appreciate it; You have yet to actually listen to the content to determine if/when these external links are truly able to improve the quality of these articles.

For now, I am just going to go and read through your guidelines and make sure that I'm following the code of Wikipedia. Thank you again for all your help. KurtSasso (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I'm not interested in listening to hundreds of hours' worth of interviews, especially during my vacation. Having transcripts of the interviews on your site would be helpful.

Anyway, that doesn't change the bottom line of what Orangemike and I have both told you: regardless of how good you think the content is, do not post links to your own site on Wikipedia (or get a friend to do it either). If editors believe the content improves the article, they will add it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not the general community of internet users that can add content, but the editors. How then can editors be neutral in their assessments of data then? Everyone has an opinion, no one can sit on the fence and thus, no one can be truly neutral. This isn't about how good, I think the content is, I'm just go by numbers. With over 32,000 downloads for the video interviews and over 25,000 for the audio interviews, there are more than enough people showcasing that the content is relevant. You seem to be focusing still, yet again, on me as the user, rather than the content that I am presenting.: KurtSasso (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For the last time: no one is saying you can't add content, just that Wikipedia has rules against adding links to your own site. I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you, and I do not want to repeat myself anymore.

No further response from you is necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the rice wine article, tribe would not be the correct term. Goguryeo is stated as a Kingdom/Statedom; not a chiefdom in the Goguryeo article. Not sure what the best term should be but tribe would be incorrect. If you can think of a better term, we should discuss, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed your edit was vandalism because you used the spelling "klan", which is often associated with the Ku Klux Klan; I didn't realize you were being serious, and I apologize. I don't have any expertise in Korean history so I'm not married to use of the term "tribe"; if you think "clan" is better then that's fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When on the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use#Images stated that "film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" mabybe acceptable. So who's right and who's wrong?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you're talking File:Omitted Scenes-.jpg, that was not a screenshot. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What you were giving was not "critical commentary and discussion of the work in question". Non-free images are only acceptable in film and television articles if they are necessary to convey to the reader some important information (for example, if you are making an important comment about the visual style or the appearance of something; some good examples can be seen in 300 (film)#Production); you can't simply add a non-free image to illustrate something (since you can convey the important information to the reader simply by saying that that scene was there, without an image). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. By the way, I'm guessing that you already read the summary I've wrote on A Weaver on the Horizon. Tell me, do you understand it or confusing. Sorry, I just like to have an outsider's opinion.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not read the article (and I don't know what summary you are referring to). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary of A Weaver on the Horizon, the article where you deleted my image of the deleted scenes. I am counting on you never sees the TV show before, and hope you can give me an outsider's opinion to see if you understand the writing or being confused of it. Sometimes I do not write very well.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the decapitalizing my shouting. TCO (Reviews needed) 17:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is on a specific incident and subject in art, and so a proper noun phrase. Please reverse your change, and don't make such changes without achieving consensus first - see WP:Requested moves Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry I've done it, but this was not a good edit. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was uncontroversial. There is no requirement that moves be requested at RM if they're uncontroversial. If I kept trying to move it now that you have objected, that would be inappropriate, but do you see me edit-warring over it? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see now it was Kevin. But "uncontroversial" is quite narrowly defined at WP:RM, & it's always best to ask unless it's a "speedy" type thing, especially when the originator is still around. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I will admit to being clueless about DYK nominations; I thought I'd done all I needed to....????? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't complete step 3 of T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind you pointing something out to me: I'm grateful for it. But prioritising that over correcting an error that was heading for the Main Page (yet another error, as quality control at DYK is sadly lacking) seemed an odd choice. That was not intended to be a "snarky response": it was concern that an admin was ignoring an uncontroversial error report. If you think that the set of priorities that you employed was appropriate, explain why rather than attacking me behind my back. Thank you, nevertheless, for dealing with it eventually.

I still don't see the issue though. Is there some option that I have turned off that would turn that "small arrow" line into a link? I have never seen it as anything other than italicised text that merely serves to inform the reader of a differential page as to what section the edit occurred in. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you might not agree with my assessment that kenatipo's edits were POV, but my reversion was in no way vandalism, so maybe your finger slipped in your edit summary of "rvv"? Cheers Tvoz/talk

You wrote "qqqqq", which looked like vandalism to me. I didn't even look beyond that. I just checked back again and it looks like someone else had removed the "qqqqq" part before my edit, which I didn't realize when I reverted.

Now that I look at the rest of the edit, though, I don't see how either version is "more neutral" than the other. Swapping "charges" for "violations", and elsewhere "violations" for "wrongdoing", doesn't seem to make any difference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my gosh - I have no idea how those "qqq"s got in there and I didn't even notice that in your revert. Totally understand why you'd see that as vandalism, sorry. As for as the rest, I was returning the text to how it had been, removing some new wording that read to me as POV insertions. It's since been changed further. Sorry for the mixup and those qqqqqqs. Weird. Tvoz/talk 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, there is another hook suggested at Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Poo Kong and I was wondering if you could leave some feedback as to whether or not it is acceptable. (This is an article which you pulled about a week and a half ago) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rjanag

Can you take a look of my user page, to see if this is a good enough warning to other users?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was very inappropriate. You cannot use your user page to make personal rants against specific users or to make threats. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I was inapporpriate. I was angry, that the users critisized me of how imperfect I am, and how I don't belong here, said that I'm disruptive because of writing in grammer errors or not using edit summaries, as if I vandalized their article instead of putting efforts of editing it. Words can be hurtful.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag

Sorry for the editing mess. The problem is that the opponent keeps ignoring my message on his talk page. So, here it goes again with a copy of it forwarded to you too:

---

Hi

I still expect your answer to my previous message which you seem to be ignoring. Please, note, that I have restored what had been written by an American multilingual linguist and what later was deleted by you with no explanation of what kind of right you have to do such a deletion.

Still waiting for you to present yourself and to confirm your linguistic background if any.

Artem Ivantsov BA in philology, 5 languages fluency Chetosco (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag,

Could you please unlock this article long enough to revert back to my previous edit (which was by Duo's comments in the talk section and Chetosco's email he'd sent to me an acceptable middle ground). The current version has some erroneous information. Certainly relock it if you feel that's needed, but if you wouldn't mind, revert to the previous edit first. Thanks Drew.ward (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen. That's exactly what my last edit was--I reverted to Drew.ward's version, which was consistent with the talk page. Rjanang, I was trying to enforce the Wikipedia rule of talk-page-consensus-first -- that's not edit warring; it's counteracting disruptive editing by someone who was violating the need for consensus. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as an administrator it's not my responsibility to evaluate the details of the dispute. See the protection policy for content disputes and The Wrong Version. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. Thank you for commenting on the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes merger proposal. This article would benefit from more contributors, and if you're interested, please add it to your watchlist. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rjanag,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• 看看哪一句对。--俠刀行 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

About the grammar

• Hi, You have to check the article Pinsk massacre. The writing is a problem that many words are not neutral, and the grammar has a few verb. I'll post a template {{grammar}} later.--俠刀行 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

R, you're right that it's a mess, but join the discussion at WT:TITLE#An alternative proposal to help sort it out. Editing the policy page itself has become rather off-limits due to past disruptions; I shouldn't have tried to do that either. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the policy discussion. I was just editing what was a horribly-written sentence, without changing what it meant for policy. Clearly you prefer to have a policy written in incomprehensible crap that no one can understand. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag,

I am very new at editing here. I've been meaning to do it for some time but only got involved now to correct an error on the Rare Disease Day article.

I would be happy to help you. What is the specific issue you need help with? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I work for NORD (the sponsor of the event in the US) so I am very concerned about my own possible conflict of interest and whether I am approaching this the right way. First thing I did was read as much as I could about editing, neutral point of view, and conflicts of interest. Then I did my best to correct the article while maintaining a neutrality. But it still looks like I might end up in a dispute.

The first problem I corrected involved two US organizations that were made prominent in the first paragraph as being involved in the event in 2008. US did not get involved until 2009; one of the organizations (Global Genes) didn't exist according to its own article in 2008. The previous editor (R500Mom) quickly wrote to me on my talk page and threatened me with a dispute. I realized that I needed to make clear where I was coming from, but would like to avoid a conflict.

My worry is that there are over 600 organizations involved right now beyond the sponsors (EURORDIS and NORD in Europe and the US, other major national organizations as well which probably SHOULD be mentioned), and it isn't really fair to have only one or two of the rest of them highlighted. Right now only R.A.R.E. and Global Genes are coming to the article to add themselves (there is a reference to Uplifting Athletes under "See Also" as well), but this could get out of control -- or it could just remain unfair to the rest of them, if they don't recognize what's going on. I do know that NORD and EURORDIS go out of their way to avoid being too central to this event, and try to make it for all the participating organizations and people. I was considering removing the sentence at the end of the first paragraph, and then adding a link to the page on rarediseaseday.us which lists all of the organizations. That seems better than listing them all on this page. However I don't want those two organizations to feel slighted either, or to end up in a dispute on my very first try with Wikipedia.

Again, I'd love to be able to highlight all of the different groups involved, but that seems cumbersome and not necessary for this article. What would you suggest?

Sophontologist (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow what the situation is. What change did you make in the article that was then disputed by another editor? rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed this:

Since 2008, a number of leading rare disease patient advocacy organizations in the United States, including the R.A.R.E. Project and Global Genes Project, have supported EURORDIS to lead efforts in their respective countries to coordinate activities and promote Rare Disease Day.

to this:

In 2009 Rare Disease Day went global as NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders) mobilized 200 rare disease patient advocacy organizations in the United States while organizations in China, Australia, Taiwan, and Latin America also lead efforts in their respective countries to coordinate activities and promote the day.

I also replaced the external link for Global Genes Project with an external link for NORD, since the other external link was for EURORDIS, and both NORD and EURORDIS were the "official sponsors" of the event, while Global Genes has been one of the 600 other participating organizations.

Sophontologist (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If linking to too many participating organizations will be cumbersome, the best option might be to include an external link (to a site outside of Wikipedia) at the end to one of the Rare Disease Day that has a list of all the participating organizations. I think if on the Wikipedia article itself we only list organizations that also have Wikipedia articles, it might be more manageable.

The disagreement with the other editor seems to have arisen because she wanted the article to have a mention of her group and she felt (perhaps mistakenly) that you were unfairly removing it: [41]. I personally am not familiar enough with the Rare Disease Day organization this year to know if the involvement of R.A.R.E and the Global Genes Project were significant enough to warrant mentioning them to the exclusion of other participating organizations (although I think it probably is not warranted in the introductory paragraph of the article, which is meant to be a brief overview and not necessarily include all detail). Actually the whole article needs some revision and re-organizing, it's become quite messy since I stopped watching it a few years ago, but if a dispute continues then it would be best for all three of us (you, me, and the other editor) to discuss this at Talk:Rare Disease Day and work out an agreement about what to say in the article, how, and where to put it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for guarding Chopsticks, R. Would you consider leaving a warning message at the IP's talk page? I have warned IP twice as is my custom. I don't AGF at all from these types of editors. Cheers again.—Djathinkimacowboy 07:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag, I don't think we've crossed paths too much, but I noticed that you've been involved in topics related to Uyghur separatism, so I thought I would reach out to you for help on Terrorism in the People's Republic of China. I've tried soliciting help from some editors involved in the terrorism project, but to no avail.

I began working on the page a few weeks ago (here's the before[42] and after[43]) after noticing that it had some serious problems. It is still very much a work in progress, though ultimately I would like to see if it can reach GA standards. But I fear that, in the absence of judicious, knowledgeable editors offering constructive feedback, the process of achieving consensus will be fraught with disruptions. I've made several proposals on the talk page suggesting ways the article could be improved, but have been...well, disappointed with the degree of collaborative editing and discussion. In particular, I'm sort of at a loss about how to handle this:[44][45][46]

If you have some time, I would very much appreciate if you could weigh in on the general direction of edits, or contribute in other ways as you see fit. Seeing as terrorism-related topics are inescapably controversial, I want to ensure that everything is being handled with adequate care. I don't have full faith in my ability to write a complete and balanced article on my own, and would really benefit from having someone to keep me in check, at a minimum (and hopefully more!). Let me know if you're interested.Homunculus (duihua) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps this was too much to ask. The page desperately needs more eyes to move forward, though. If you have suggestions on other users who might be able to contribute constructively, I would appreciate knowing their names. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 05:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

	support for ease and transparency
	Thank you for your (seemingly) tireless effort to make the DYK process easy to understand, user-friendly and transparent to follow, willing to try suggestions and drop them if not wanted. Thank you also for patiently explaining again and again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 72nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 October 2010, 24 October 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently come across some old posts of yours while researching WP:ATHLETE; I recently nominated a few random athletes for deletion, based on what I now realized was a perhaps incorrect or incomplete reading of the current consensus. In any case, I sympathize with your POV, and I'm wondering, if I wanted to generate a new discussion around WP:ATHLETE how (and where) would you recommend I do so? Esp with dwindling editorship, the proliferation of stub articles cannot end up helping the project... --Karl.brown (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

T:AH needs an additional AFD, CSD, PROD outcome: withdrawn. See Talk:Kony 2012.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't manage that template (I'm not very familiar with most of its inner workings); last time I checked, User:Gimmetrow (or User:Gimmetoo) was in charge of it, I'm not sure if someone else is doing it now though. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw that this message on your page: "This editor is listed at Highly Active Users, and is willing to provide you with assistance and advice." so I approached to you regarding one problem.

Problem: I was able to get a list of article I created with this tool. But now it says "403: User account expired". Is there an alternative tool to get such a list without having to register first or to contact anybody by mail? Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but you can try asking at WP:VP/T. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

=BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed you have been active lately removing WP:Death banners from a number of articles. You do not provide any reason except for "not relevant" in the edit summary. Could you expound on this rather terse notice? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not "been active lately removing banners"; I removed a bunch just now as a one-time action. An editor only just added the banners to numerous articles. None of these articles are about death or particularly relevant. If every article that included mention of people dying were tagged by that WikiProject, then every biography that's not a BLP would be tagged. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to argue over a difference in semantics. Now, if you look at the main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Death, you will clearly see that "massacres" are within the scope of the project. (However, massacres as a result of military action are something of an overlap, and while I've been considering bringing this issue up on the project talk page, as it is now, all those massacres where you removed the banner are still within the scope of the project.) You even removed one from the article List of bog bodies. Not sure of your reasoning there. They're dead. Death and preservation are the main notability of bog bodies. The criteria for inclusion isn't that someone is dead, but it's cases in which death makes a person, or people, or an event notable. Finally, two editors looked at those articles before you. One tagged them, one assessed them (me). Therefore, two editors checked to make sure the subjects fit the criteria for inclusion. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across the tagging first because the user tagged July 2009 Urumchi riots, which was not a massacre and is not within the scope of your project. While I was undoing the others I remember also coming across Charles Whitman, and I see biographies of this sort are explicitly listed as outside the scope of your project. Bog bodies is clearly relevant and my removal of the template from that article was a mistake. As for the rest, do what you want; I am not interested in having an edit war over something as meaningless as project banners on talk pages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I had not look at those. You're right, the Whitman article does not belong. And the tagging editor has been a bit active lately, for some reason. Anyway, I'm pleased with your spirit of cooperation and that this issue could be brought to an amicable conclusion.Boneyard90 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The tagging editor was me. I was working through the List of events named massacres article which was added to the Wikiproject as being of high-relevance. The "riots" article covers "violent attacks that mainly targeted Han ("ethnic Chinese") people" and the article of Whitman is currently the only article covering his killings. Dimadick (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-ew requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 23:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You an administrator who is quite active at WP:DYK, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Benlisquare here. Hey man, I lost the link you gave me, and I can't get on (keyword) because of (...). Can you give me it again? I'm in China right now. How do I get past the "gee eph dubya"? Talk page and email please, thanks. 116.228.247.22 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a working open proxy, lol. Hopefully the government doesn't block this one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found it! Sorry about the late response, I haven't been checking WP much lately... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vogue (magazine), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 198.185.164.128 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag Just a quick request to ask if you would possibly please check article Randa Mai for WP:RS and whether it satisfies WP:BLP and WP:NN. The article was proposed for deletion right after it appeared but the tag was removed by the author who justified it by citing sources/refs on the talk page (one being a fan wiki, the other allegedly a pron database. A couple of contribs by another enthusiast and a few standard bot visits is all there is for development and oversight. Anyway, notability looks questionable (despite my complete lack of knowledge of either pron or Japanese) and would depend on WP:RS. Hope you don't mind the request - I remembered your language skills from dealing with this guy here [47]. All the best and thanks, Plutonium27 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, been a while. Same user is currently warring at Falun Gong, but I'm too lazy to file a 3RR now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed your message but it looks like he got blocked ater all; I'll try to keep an eye on it (although I'm not checking WP as frequently as I used to these days). Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Im interested if you see a relation to User:Patriotmissile. --Martin H. (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've been watching your back-and-forth edits at Chick-fil-A. I know you mean well, and copyright violations are a serious matter that we should all guard against, but the other editors are right - there isn't a problem with using a short quote. It may be useful for you to learn more about the doctrine of Fair use, so you can save your time and energy for other things. I hope this helps! {{{1}}}-TALK 17:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am quite familiar with fair use, having been through numerous GANs and FACs. The two editors who reverted me there did not understand my rationale for removing the quote (this is understandable, since I was only communicating via short edit summaries). I am not criticizing the quote itself, I am criticizing the way it is quoted, which mirrors the style of the original source. For "using a short quote" to apply, you could have to put the whole sentence (not just the quote, but the sentence in which the quote is quoted) in quotation marks.

Also, you and the second editor have apparently ignored the other issue I pointed out: the quote is useless anyway, all it does is take up space in an already-long section, and doesn't add any actual information that was not already present in the text. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article suffers badly from WP:RECENTISM. On that, I think we can agree. But I fear improvements will have to wait until the lynch mob gets tired and goes home. {{{1}}}-TALK 19:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. It may be necessary to wait a little while before people are able to keep some perspective in mind when editing it. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how to write "Ape Immortal of the Pine Grove" in Chinese. Would 松林猿仙 be correct, or would it be reversed with some kind of modifier added? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag - I was very happy to see you participate in Language and in fact the claim you removed I had already decided to remove myself for the same reason. Any help you can give to improving the section on neural bases of langauge will be greatly appreciated. Also we kind of need an article about Brain and language if you are up for that. Thanks again!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been great to see all the improvements you've made recently, too! I'm trying not to be too involved because I have so much real-world stuff I need to be doing these days, but I'll try to keep contributing.

As for Brain and language, what about just redirecting it to Neurolinguistics? That article is more about neurolinguistics as a field (the techniques used and stuff like that) and less about specific findings, which I suppose could be a good thing or a bad thing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I considered that but the Neurolinguistics article is very much about the discipline and its history and not about its findings. I think we definitely need an article that explains what we know about the neurological bases for language - and I am not the man who should be writing it. *wink wink nudge nudge say no more*·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag. I hope you have heeded my comments on the talkpage. In connection with reversals of our article-editing of linguistics, I request you in good faith to not undo my valid edits because of a few errors in the typing and writing that can be easily corrected by any other member on Wikipedia. The point of my edits had been to tighten the presentation of the article and I don't think there was anything wrong with the changes. In good faith, MrsCaptcha (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove without permission without basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous sensible (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me where?Philostahl (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're referring to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edits on various Asian language pages. But re these edits there's a reason for the edits or I wouldn't have made them, so have restored pending discussion.

• (1) giving the local name of the classifier - although wikipedia is not a dictionary, true, the term "classifier" "measure word" "count word" "counter" itself varies across the grammars of these languages and for that reason an anchor in the correct local term is worth noting (in brackets)
• (2) examples - it'd be worth having at least one example consistent across Chinese-Korean-Japanese-Vietnamese, hence I added "3 articles of clothing" to each of the four to allow comparison between the 4 Sino-script based languages.

If you really badly object to either of these two edits, I hope you won't, let's discuss on talk page. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As for (1), the local terms for "classifier" are available in the linked articles (e.g. Chinese classifier for Chinese, Korean count word for Korean, etc.) and are not crucial to understanding what a classifier is, so they are still unnecessary. As for (2), you make a good point about having a consistent example across these languages; I hadn't noticed that that was what you were doing. But we don't need a ton of examples, so my suggestion would be that for each language you replace one of the old examples with this one, rather than adding it but keeping the old examples. (You will notice that I did precisely that with Chinese; I kept your new example and got rid of "Do you have seven tables", which is just a weird sentence anyway.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/ Test at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,I would like to be an autoconfirmed user, to save the books made with wikibooks. I asked in the main forum,somebody suggest me to contact any admin that can upgrade my account. Would you be so kind to do this for me? Many Thanks! VV Chitammuo (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,I would like to be an autoconfirmed user, to save the books made with wikibooks. I asked in the main forum,somebody suggest me to contact any admin that can upgrade my account. Would you be so kind to do this for me? Many Thanks! VV Chitammuo (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I improved the article Antonietta Di Martino, I wanted to ask you if I can reproduce the following: «DYN that she is able to jumping 2.04 m, but only 1.69 m tall, with 35 cm is the woman with the largest differential of all-time?» How I can do? You can reopen this?--Kasper2006 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of words with uncommon properties, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Lee Tru./sandbox/WikiDragon, WikiPlatypus Meating den is now open! Check it out, we (the WikiDragons) could use some help form you!-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag,

I have inserted the hakka pronounciation version to [[[Template:Zh/doc#Usage|this template]] but it shows up as "Chinese" instead of "Pha̍k-fa-sṳ". Could you help me fix this error? Thanks. --Hak-kâ-ngìn (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I will try to get around to updating the template soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm confused. Once in a while, I nominate a DYK. When I went to do so just now and clicked the "nominate" button, it said the page could be edited only by admins. When I checked the protection log, your name came up. What's up? I just wanted to make a quick nom and move on, but I don't know where to go. It's quite possible I'm being dumb in some way, since I don't nominate often. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm an idiot. I was in a rush, and I see what I did wrong. Sorry to bother you! Cynwolfe (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice to have met you, even if it's only Wikipedia :) Icedwater (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award#Category:Wikipedia_four_award_articles_not_showing_up_on_article_talk_pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your hear [ivɛːʁ], [ivæːʁ] or [ivaɛ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.96.53 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you ask? I would prefer to know what dispute I'm being dragged into before I answer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't hear well. 198.105.118.205 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In standard French this word would be [ivɛːʁ], but this token sounds to me more like [ivæːʁ], which is more typical of Quebec French.

In the future, you can address these questions to the Language reference desk. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The word fête is pronounced "fight" in Quebec French. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo 198.105.113.19 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this tidbit of information is relevant to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Fyi. This Rfc you participated in has been converted into a requested move. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

a pointless name change, where else would humans process language, or are you trying to avoid adding constructive content to improve the article dolfrog (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a collection of review papers to the talk page which you may find useful when editing this article dolfrog (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not pointless at all. The article focuses entirely on issues of the neural implementation of language processing, but that is not the only question relevant to language processing. There is a vast literature that focuses on architectural issues without specific reference to the brain (i.e., most of the psycholinguistic literature that uses behavioral methods; see the article Sentence processing for a more balanced perspective compared to what is provided in the article Language processing in the brain). Having an article called "Language processing" that only addresses neurobiology is about as comprehensive as would be having an article called "Linguistics" that only addresses morphosyntax.

If I understand correctly, your background is in SLP/speech pathology. "Processing" (e.g. "sentence processing" or "language processing", however, generally connotes fields in psycholinguistics, which is what my background is (psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics). Our different backgrounds could be causing us to have different preconceptions about what topics fall under the scope of "language processing". rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand the different approaches and trying and probably clumsily trying to bridge the gap. My line of thought is more processing sound to processing speech to processing language, which is the progression of problems experienced by many of my family including me. And our perspective language is a man made problem and the last in the progression of issues. Due to my poor gap detection abilities (gaps between sounds) and poor word recall abilities processing the sounds of speech can be problem, and my back up systems are lip reading and reading body language to help fill information I miss say during a conversation. There are other auditory processing issues which can further complicate life. lat night I went through my various PubMed research paper collections and created new collection or review articles which may be useful as citation if you were to improve the article. My own copy editing skills are none existant as i discovered some years ago when i tried to edit the dyslexia and auditory processing disorder articles. Thankfully the auditory processing disorder article was revised by prof D Bishop from Oxford University prior in the lead up to the first auditory processing symposium in March 2012, unfortunately the dyslexia article has become a mess again. dolfrog (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what this information has to do with the topic being discussed here. But as you can see, in that entire message you did not once mention the brain, or anything about neural architecture, which just proves my point that there are aspects of "language processing" beyond just the neuroscience aspects. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

the brain processes sounds, the brain processes speech, and the brain processes langauge, so I may not have mentioned the brain, but all information processing is performed by the brain, so the brain was mentioned by implication. None of these tasks can be performed without using the brain, but may be linguists have other ideas. dolfrog (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is, not all research on language processing is neuroscience research. As you pointed out in your message above, there is research using entirely behavioral (i.e., non-neuro) methods, like word recall. That is the reason linguists, psychologists, and neuroscientists often refer to the "brain/mind" rather than the brain--oftentimes research is looking at the psychological aspect of language processing without directly examining its neural implementation. Basic questions about language processing such as whether certain processes are top-down or bottom-up, modular or interactive, automatic or effortful, are all questions about the mind and not necessarily questions about the brain. So, as I have already explained multiple times, an article that only discusses neural implementation is missing an enormous part of what is known about language processing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

word recall problems are a problem with poor auditory processing and working memory, and nothing to do with behaviour, and that is the problem. So many not understanding how the brain works, and preferring their own old theories, pre neurobiology and being more about their egos and status than science. From my own perspective most linquists live in their own time bubble going back decades, and refuse keep pace with scientific progress. All language issues are brain related, as their would be no language, as we know it, without the evolution of the human brain everything else is secondary. dolfrog (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I never denied that language is not related to the brain. What I said is that it is not the case that all research on language processing is neuroscience research. One of your own examples (working memory), is widely tested using behavioral methods (e.g., the Daneman & Carpenter reading span task and its spin-offs), not neuroscience methods. While language processing of course happens somewhere in the brain, people still can--and often do--learn about it using methods other than neuroimaging. Trying to say that the only research relevant to language processing is neuroscience research belies a deep misunderstanding of what research on language processing entails. Just take a quick look at the program of this year's CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (just one example of one conference regarding one sub-area of language processing) and you will see that there is a huge amount of language processing research that does not make reference to the brain at all. You can see the same thing if you look at any introductory psycholinguistics textbook, or the psych chapter of any introductory linguistics textbook, or probably the language chapter of most introductory psych textbooks.

There is no need to respond; as far as I can tell you are not asking for the page Language processing in the brain to be moved to a new title, or suggesting any changes to its content, so continuing this discussion will not really have any impact on building the encyclopedia. If you would like to continue the discussion you are welcome to contact me off-wiki. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles will miss articles when the GA and DYK are not merged into the T:AH. It happened this week with Lie Kim Hok. Can any correction be made for this situation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of problems like this happen when those things aren't merged into the ArticleHistory template, which is why I think people make an effort to make sure ArticleHistory is always updated. The most straightforward solution (and the only one I can think of right now) is just to make sure GA and DYK are included in the ArticleHistory template; the "problem" is not in how the category works, the "problem" is that in a page like Talk:Lie Kim Hok the ArticleHistory hadn't been done correctly, so the best solution is to fix that problem rather than to try to change the category to address a problem that it isn't responsible for. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That listed/promoted issue should be a high priority. No telling how many instances of that there are out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I already fixed this. As far as I can tell it only affected two articles (although there is a small chance that there may be more articles that haven't shown up in the category yet because of this). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five showed up in the category after the change even though it was never a DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then when I removed |four=yes, it did not even return to the category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Juwan Howard just showed up in the category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

More are showing up: 243 Ida, James Moore (Continental Army officer), and Double Seven Day scuffle.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a file for that purpose. It might need to be cropped to show the vandalized text more clearly. SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at the file, in case it does need to be cropped. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 00:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you may have recently made edits to neurowear while logged out. There are two reasons why you should not edit while logged out: 1) doing so will reveal your IP address; and 2) people may accuse you of sockpuppetry, i.e. trying to make yourself look like multiple users in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute or rig votes in polls. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you.

How many articles have four=no right now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You edited all day yesterday without responding to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "edited all day" you mean "made three edits", then yes, I guess I did that.

The answer to your question is nobody knows, as there is not currently a way to track them. It would be relatively easy to create a tracking category and then find out the number after a few days. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There were no implications with my statement that you edited all day. Yes. Could you please create a tracking category for four=no as an analog to the four=yes one. Why would it take a few days for the number to pop up? I would like to speak about this number as a concrete number rather than something that could be 300 or 1300.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason it would take several days is that waiting for a category to populate via a template takes time; see Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template. Anyway right now this is not at the top of my priority list. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an extremely important task. WP:FOUR is in a state of turmoil. People want to change the evaluation criteria. I want to explain to them how many articles will have to be reasssessed if we do so. I need this number fairly quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles rejected for Four awards now tracks these articles and {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia articles rejected for Four awards}} gives a count. It will take days or weeks to have a meaningful estimate. If you want a faster answer you should ask a bot operator to do an immediate count. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize that I have been pushy with your time, but I surely don't understand the issues related to what a bot can do versus what tracking categories do or what to request. Could you make this request?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What you need is a bot to go through all [33,000] pages that transclude {{ArticleHistory}} and count how many include the text |four=no within the article history template. That would spit out a one-time count automatically, whereas a tracking category will always have this list but will take several weeks to populate in the beginning. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can the bot populate the category while doing this count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That would require making null edits to each talk page. I'm not the bot operator so I don't know if it's possible. That question belongs at the bot request page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The following is a notice I sent out to a few people: I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The DYK nomination for this article was put on hold after you started both an AfD and a merge discussion. The former closed as no consensus; the latter appears to have vanished late last month.

I didn't want to restart the review process if the merge discussion was going to make a comeback, so I was hoping you could let me know whether you decided to let the matter drop, or plan to resume your push for the merge. If the article stands on its own in its present form and the DYK review should go forward, then I'll call for a new reviewer. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did not start any AfD, which should be pretty obvious if you look at the article history or the AfD history. And the merge request didn't mysteriously "vanish", it was unilaterally removed by an involved editor who just gave a circular, not-a-rationale edit summary. But if you want to review the DYK then go ahead; I am not watching either the DYK or the article anymore (the diff I just found after about five seconds of searching once you sent me this message). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the AfD misattribution; I misremembered what happened. And yes, I knew that the merge didn't mysteriously vanish, but it effectively disappeared, so I thought the word was appropriate. (It was made to vanish.) I don't plan on reviewing it myself, but wanted to put out the "review needed" icon so someone would review it if you had no objections. Thanks for the quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wordless novel is another type of coding error for WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleeta curvicosta seems to also fall into this class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean specifically? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

These are pages where neither the GA nor the DYK template was converted to the T:AH so your current code will miss these. This means that if you don't change the code and the folks at FAC continue to be lazy, I will have to go through the talk pages of every article at WP:FAL by hand to identify possible FOUR articles.. Your code will not find the articles if they are not going to be filling out the T:AH properly by incorporating GA and DYK tags. Can you revise it to identify these cases too so that I don't have to do so much leg work and can go back to just using your category of possible articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No. As I think i have said before, it is simply not possible to do this via templates and categories; a category can only be populated from a single template, because templates have no way of "seeing into" other templates. What you are asking for is something that would have to be done by a bot, which I am not going to write.

Either way, the code for populating Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles does not have a "coding error". It does exactly what it was intended to do, which is to populate that category based on what is in T:ArticleHistory. The error is on the part of people not updating to ArticleHistory, which I believe is supposed to happen with those processes. I cannot be held responsible for that. You can either ask for a bot, or just let people who want FOUR to apply for it themselves. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Been skipping on your humility medication, perhaps? Slashing at me 'cos you assumed too much is responsible? — Lfdder (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I already provided you a link to Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. Click on it and read what's there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not question the merits of edit summaries or my own "failure" to include one; I questioned your reaction here. — Lfdder (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You dont see that the source says she is Spanish?

http://web.archive.org/web/20080421225750/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/features/jessica-alba-she-wooed-hollywood-with-her-sultry-looks-ndash-but-now-shes-getting-serious-812464.html

"Alba began to forge a film career. With her unusual ethnic origins – a mix of Mexican, Danish, French and Spanish"

its in the 13th paragraph. She also says here Alba is from Spain:

http://www.sawfnews.com/jessica-alba-stunned-as-tv-show-dna-test-shows-she-is-descended-from-europeans/

The video of her getting the results is on youtube which mentions her DNA test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNAqwrm9hY

C super2 (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit said that the information was in "the first source", which is ambiguous--I thought you meant the first source in the paragraph. You're not the only person editing Wikipedia; make an effort to communicate clearly.

Also, even the source you mention here does not say that her father is of Spanish origin (it just says that someone in her family tree is), which is what you put in the article text. So it's still unsourced. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#‎Titsingh's Annals of the Emperors of Japan. In my opinion, this is a pretext for continuing a pattern which was difficult to parse neatly here and here.

As you know, I did not participate in the ANI threads Hijiri88 started

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#User:Enkyo2 needs to start speaking in English
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

In this new context, would no response have been a plausible strategy?

At this point, it seems to me that Hijiri88 is targeting me. His attention is focused on me for reasons which are not clear. If you understand how I might feel that way, can you suggest ways to mitigate this growing problem. Is this explainable as an example of WP:Poking? --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo, the last user who went around reverting a whole bunch of my edits based on an unjustified feeling of "ownership" of a certain group of articles that I had actually been editing in before him, and then accused me "targeting" him when I was clearly the one trying to find a peaceful solution ... well, let's just say it didn't work out well for him. I have said numerous times that I think you're a good editor with a lot to add to the project, and only need to improve in a few areas. I'd be happy to help you with this. But first you have to stop hounding me, learn to cite sources, learn to discuss disputes coherently on talk pages, and stop making ridiculous accusations against me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What's "bold" about adding a section that obviously ought to be there? I HAVE started a discussion (I notice you didn't, nor have you contributed to the last discussion that you insisted I start) - I hope you will now contribute to it. But this "get my permission before you touch this page" attitude is absurd and counterproductive. As I say, you can do a better job of writing this section than I can - I hope when you get time you will be able to do so. But to continue to remove my contributions for no reason except a very obvious desire to exclude from the article anything that you didn't write yourself is harming what could be (and largely already is) a very good and useful article. This information is basic stuff, I'm sorry if you feel your pride has been hurt by having it pointed out that it was missing from the article that you crafted, but it surely belongs and you really have no business trying to suppress it for reasons of pique or whatever. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you need to go back and re-read WP:BRD, which I provided a link to already. The fact that you think a section "ought" or ought not to have been there doesn't change the basic procedure, which is as follows: there was a status quo version of the article, you changed it (B), I reverted it (R), then a discussion needs to happen (D). As far as I can tell from looking at the page history, you didn't start a discussion until after we had gone through this song and dance several times.

This has nothing to do with any editor's pride, and everything to do with following the standard practices for dealing with content disagreements appropriately. Please don't distract from the content issues by trying to get personal. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what you and the others said, the material was directly copied from the web site--and the other sources listed.I noticed that as Iwas deleting them. This is fairly common for promotional articles that seem coherent and professionally written, and I now check it every time. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to know quite a bit about the Uyghur language, would you like to make any additions to Renminbi#Use in minority regions? Do you happen to know what the RMB (Or yuan) is known as in the Uyghur language? --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll look into this. My Uyghur is so rusty now... I'm pretty sure they just borrowed yuan and use that (although it's a two-syllable word the way they pronounce it) but I should double-check. And the smaller denominations I definitely don't remember so I can try to find that information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. Your user page seems to indicate a good linguistics background and faith-orientation for theology-religion related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading one book review if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love". Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to work on this and I'm not interested. Also I'm not sure why you say I have a "faith-orientation for theology-religion related articles", as I have made almost no edits to articles in those topics. Also it's not clear what article you are asking for help on. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rjnag. Your current user page lists you for a template for a unitarian universalist, just like James Luther Adams and Paul Tillich for "faith-orientation". If your user page was vandalized with an unknown template maybe you could look at this. AutoJellinek (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't need you to explain my own religion to me. But the fact that that is my religion does not mean I edit pages about that topic. Besides, like I said above, I don't have time to work on this, and you never said what article you want help with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this pronunciation is [sœɡõdɛːʁ] or [sœɡõdaɛ̯ʁ] ? It's difficult to guess. 166.48.173.57 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, do you still want to uphold the no-off topic discussion consensus at that article? The Soapbox on the talk page is getting out of hand. Jim101 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Eye movement in reading: did you get consensus for moving this to a title that focuses solely on saccades (one part of eye movement ... which occupies about 10% of the duration)? I'd like an explanation. Tony (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) (And I don't care that many research texts use the plural; many don't.) Tony (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm writing to you because of your past involvement with the Urumqi riots in 2009. There was a major knife attack in Kunming. Death toll somewhere between 29 and 34, about 140 injuries as of most recent reports. It's looking likely that the attack is associated with the Uyghur independence movement although the situation is obviously cloudy. Editors with experience working on Han / Uyghur conflict would be appreciated to make sure we stick to WP:RS and avoid WP:RECENTISM while this situation unfolds. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Two years, you were the 72nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Kenyon College has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You promised us a Kringle-photo before Christmas 2011. Do have good photo perhaps?

RhinoMind (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Involuntary health consequences. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Involuntary health consequences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What was your reasoning for deleting The Justin Gaethje page JMichael22 (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JMichael22,

The reason for deletion is as I listed in the deletion log: the page that was created is nearly identical to a version that was deleted in an Articles for Deletion discussion. I don't know if this person has now become more notable than they were when the article was initially deleted, but if that is the case, then any new article must reflect this new information and demonstrate how the person meets Wikipedia's notability criterion for biographies. I would suggest that, if you want to create this article, you first develop it in a user subpage, where you will have time to improve it until it's at a point where it won't get immediately deleted, and then once it's ready you could consider moving it into the article space. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway I could recover the page to alter it for the user subpage JMichael22 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the content to User:JMichael22/Justin Gaethje for you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You JMichael22 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

=={Proposed deletion/dated

 |concern = The primary contributor has apparently given up (declined db-g7 request) and the article in its current state is in need of extensive editing which is not likely to happen; not sure if this meets WP:N or not, but it should probably either be stub-ified or deleted. (Note, the prod was removed before by the article creator, but that editor is now blocked for copyvio, and it's not clear to me whether the editor removed the prod intentionally to contest it or was just reverting to an earlier copyvio version of the article.)
 |timestamp = 20141013072531

The history is too complicated for prod. Please use afd DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you dealt with a sockpuppet account called Chinese-proti at Prostitution in China who subsequently opened multiple accounts to add misleading content and you semi protected the article. Well he came back as User:Mixjang1234 and User:Baohio8888 (and apparently he constantly watches the article every single day to see if any of his content his removed) and I don't think he is going to go away until the article is permanently semi protected. He appears to be a Korean nationalist, trying to downplay about Korean women's prostitution to foreigners while trying to spam content about Chinese women prostituting or Korean men getting sex from foreign women.Rajmaan (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I have only taken a quick glance, but it doesn't look as straightforward as the previous case (the insertions don't look like the verbatim same edit as the stuff Chinese-proti was inserting, unless I missed an edit somewhere), so I'm not sure if WP:DUCK applies. Might need to go through an actual SPI. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He is making it kind of obvious by the username he is using with these new accounts. Boahoi234 Rijun1234 These definitely are WP:DUCK. And it isn't just ban evasion, the content he is adding is significantly different from what the sources say, trying to misrepresent a one time event at a single bar from 2006 as still ongoing event on a massive scale in China. I put it through SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti. Can you permanently semi-protect the article? He has been doing this for several years now and just keeps coming back with more socks. He isn't going to quit anytime soon. Rajmaan (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)