User talk:Rjanag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Most recent archive

1: August–October 2008
2: November 2008
3: December 2008
4: January–February 2009
5: March–April 2009
6: May–July 2009
7: August–December 2009
8: January–May 2010
9: June 2010 – present

Click here to leave me a message saying I'm great, or here to leave me a message saying I'm terrible.
Click here to leave me any other kind of message.
Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ after it.


RE: Nothing to My Name article[edit]


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

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


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

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

Nothing to My Name[edit]

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Ambassador Program: assessment drive[edit]

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

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 Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them.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

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

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

Icelandic Phallological Museum[edit]

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

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

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences[edit]

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

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

Review template[edit]

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 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[edit]

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:
{{DYK review checklist
 | length=y ~~~
 | newness=y ~~~
 | hookfact=n ~~~
 | hookinterest= y ~~~
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
to create
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
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
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):
Length Newness Cited hook Interest Sources Neutrality Plagiarism/paraphrase
rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk)
{{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.
Length Newness Cited hook Interest Sources Neutrality Plagiarism/paraphrase
{{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)


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:
{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of '''[[water]]'''?
created by some user

{{User:Rjanag/DYK hook checklist
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
:*The article [[Ice]] is still a stub. ~~~~

created by some user

Hook review
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk)
  • Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review for Water
Length Newness Adequate
Neutrality Plagiarism
rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk)

Article review for Ice
Length Newness Adequate
Neutrality Plagiarism
rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk) rʨanaɢ (talk)
  • The article Ice is still a stub. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
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)


Your deletion[edit]

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

At the time I didn't realize "Institute of Marine Sciences" was referring to this exact institute. I have already restored the reference. But I don't appreciate your snarky tone. There's no need to get snarky with me just because I pointed out legitimate problems with your article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You originated the snarky tone, which I don't appreciate either. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall ever being snarky with you, the only interaction I remember having with you is at Template talk:Did you know/Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences where all I did was review your article and point out problems with it in an objective way. Is this is the way you're going to treat every reviewer who volunteers to look at your nominations for DYK, good luck getting people to waste their time on your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand how you guys operate this now. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)`

Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project DYK[edit]

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

You are so great[edit]

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

Event-Related Potential[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Gloria (Handel)[edit]

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)

Rowing about rowing[edit]

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

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

DYK changes[edit]

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)

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

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.


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

The new DYK nomination procedure[edit]

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

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

To be honest, I think the failure here is mostly the teacher's; if a teacher wants to use Wikipedia as a project, it's his/her responsibility to educate him/herself about the process and to let the students know that DYK involves more than just posting a nomination an hour before your class deadline and then wiping your hands of it.
As for listing the reviewed article in the template, I tried to be clear by writing "if you have reviewed another article, list it here" (emphasis mine), but I could try to make it more clearer, I guess. The DYK rules state that the review requirement only applies to editors who've had fewer than 5 DYKs. I think it also says it's ok to do the QPQ review after nominating. Anyway, I believe that at some point no amount of technology can make up for simply reading instructions, and therefore I tend to be hesitant to update the template to get rid of problems that could be avoided just by reading the instructions--it seems many people nominate DYKs without reading them at all, and maybe it's wrong of me but I don't usually try to hold their hand very much, I just tell them to read the rules/instructions.
As for simplifying the template, I've already tried to make it as simple as possible by marking the mandatory fields (e.g., article, hook, author) and not the optional ones, and the editnotice when filling out the template includes a link to Template:NewDYKnomination/guide, a step-by-step guide to filling out the template.
But anyway, it seems like most of your concerns are about the nomination template itself, not the new system per se. This template has been in use since late 2008, and the review thing was added to it last October, so there's nothing particularly new about any of these issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it's simply the old template plus creating a subpage? That's not the impression I've had from looking over the talkpage! Maybe time for some damage control there.
I have tried very hard not to bite the instructor, but I really, really wish someone had spotted this situation before the course ended. I left him a long message with links and advice and he has now added himself to the list at WP:SUP. Also he will presumably next be teaching in the fall, when he and the students will have considerably more time, and he's agreed to add a copyediting step to what he has the students do. However, what these students did gives us points of data, particularly this one who gave up. And failing to do Step 3 happens often enough at AfD that I've noticed it. So this is a human failing that doesn't just apply to freshmen at a community college.
Is there any way to make incomplete nominations apparent to any do-gooders who might want to do what you actually did and go tell the nominator at their talk page? Does it come up on a list somewhere or could such a list be automatically generated? This kid was already way behind on the assignments and in the last week of the course—he may well not have seen your message. Other editors presumably will look at their talk, even if they don't go back to TT:DYK as they should. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of un-transcluded nominations (failing to do Step 3), there's not an easy automatic way to do it; as far as I know, it requires a bot. I am looking into getting DumbBOT (the bot that does this task at AfD) to do it here, but the bot operator hasn't yet responded to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd report back that partly as a test, I nominated Jan Buijs and it was eventually approved and featured at DYK. The transclusion step did indeed weird me out - it took me a total of 3 edits. The last one because for some reason I thought it would bold the article name in the hook, also. After going through the process I do feel it's a similar situation to nominating an article for deletion, with the last step being hard, but I note that unlike my memories of doing an AfD, you had a version of the final-step instructions be there when I needed to do it, whereas at AfD I was forced to have two tabs open because otherwise the instructions for Step 3 would be gone when I needed them. I'm not sure what more can be done to simplify things; I note an experienced DYKer recently forgot to put the article name in one place. I'm sure a lot of us were doing what I used to do and keeping a copy of the nomination template somewhere to be copied and pasted into Word to get the hook inserted. In short, it wasn't as difficult as I'd feared, but it was difficult enough that I made stupid mistakes. I think getting a bot to rescue incomplete nominations would be a good idea. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Review template (2)[edit]

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 Green tickY, Red XN 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 Green tickY or Red XN.
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 Green tickY/Red XN; 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 Green tickY rʨanaɢ (talk) for a yes, Red XN rʨanaɢ (talk) for a fail, and disappear entirely if left blank, leaving no trace for later reviewers to use. (The only way around this would be to have it <!--commented--> out as well, but then it would require even more typing than the original option: one click to remove the <!--, one to remove the -->, and one to add the y/n on the inside.)
Regarding signatures, I posted some samples at WT:DYK of how I imagine the template working without signatures. I think if people are diligent about posting comments along with their review (e.g., not just filling out the template and then leaving without saying anything) it should still be clear who did what. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you persuaded me on the DYKyes/no front (I think they are better names than DYKX/Y BTW). I still think the signatures will be necessary though. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion regarding these alternatives seems to have come to a screaming halt. How would you feel about a quick straw poll to decide on one of the two alternatives? I feel we need to resolve this issue quickly because it seems Tony's checklist is leading to discouragement across the board, from nominators to reviewers to admins, so it needs to be replaced quickly IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of doing that too, although I'm not totally sure how to conduct it. I'll probably just list all four options (Tony's checklist, and the three I outlined on WT:DYK) and let people Support or Oppose as many as they want. But to be honest I think votes from people who actually do review articles should be "worth" more than votes from people who are just coming along to get in on some of the polling action (if that happens)...I wonder if I should make that clear from the beginning (although I think if I do maybe people will accuse me of being subjective or arbitrary...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it that way Rjanag - I would just confine the poll to whether sigs should be used with your checklist or just ticks and crosses. As you say, if you broaden it to include all options, we are likely to attract uninformed !voters at this point. Once we get a view on which of your two versions to use, then we can have a discussion about whether to use your checklist or Tony's, but quite frankly having looked at the mess at T:TDYK, I think Tony's checklist is a non-starter, and Tony himself seems amenable to the idea of dropping it in favour of something more concise, so we may be able to avoid a poll on that altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll post one in a minute. To be honest I'm not optimistic about getting many responses, given that right now it seems all people want to do is have big vague arguments about things that are never going to happen. I guess actually trying to get things done is too mundane for people...... rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Bitrot on Template:DYK talk[edit]

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

That's a good catch. There are several templates that need to be updated at once (this template is called from another template somewhere, etc. etc., and parameters get passed around), so I will need to make sure I change everything that needs to be changed. I'm about to step out; I'll try to get this done before I log off tonight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I was incorrect before. The change you've suggested actually won't work, because {{DYK talk}} itself is not substituted (substitution only works when within templates that are also being substituted). In cases like you've described, the only solution is to add |nompage=. I'll add info about that to the documentation like you suggested; I think I can also look into getting the |nompage= to be filled out automatically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I did this to add |nompage= into the preloaded text for this template (so that, most of the time, the |nompage= parameter will be specified...since this still relies on the same BASEPAGENAME trick it still won't work in cases where the page was already moved before the crediting was done, or where the nomination page name simply doesn't match the article title to begin with...but at least it will probably resolve the majority of the cases you were worried about). I also added |nompage= to the template documentation.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm not a DYK regular, and I was just checking out the changes to the existing templates. The {{{article}}} parameter seems to try and accomplish the same goal of preserving the page's name at the time it was at DYK. Maybe {{{nompage}}} could become a simple "yes" and DYKUpdateBot can be given the task of checking whether an article has been moved since its nom, and update {{{article}}} accordingly? --Gyrobo (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm. In the majority of cases this would probably work, but there are some cases where the nompage name will not be the same as the article title (for instance, nominations of multiple articles at once), and nompage allows links to be added even in those cases. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe check views could be moved to the nomination page after a hook's promotion, along with the final hook and picture? This is the first time it's been possible to have a central location for everything related to a DYK hook (much the same way all other processes are handled), so maybe you could bypass {{DYK talk}} entirely and make it part of {{ArticleHistory}}? Then you could also view the article's status at the time of its DYK with an oldid. Semantically, I don't see why the discussion over an article's DYK is different from a discussion over its deletion, or a peer review: they're all actions which affect the article, and {{ArticleHistory}} should be keeping track of them. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ArticleHistory}} is generally only implemented on GAs and FA/Ls (or at least articles that have been through those processes). Furthermore, there has been consensus (as far as I remember) not to include a whole lot of DYK information in {{ArticleHistory}}; it basically just includes the date, and we would have to get consensus to add the hook, views, link to the subpage, etc.
the things you're suggesting above are, I think, technically doable, but mainly I just don't see the problem they are meant to solve. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ArticleHistory}} already includes dykentry, and {{DYK talk}} is generally removed when {{ArticleHistory}} is added. The transition removes check views, and now the nom page as well. I came up with a rough sketch of what I'm thinking – basically, now that DYK noms have there own pages it would be useful to keep track of the same things that other processes keep track of. Where would I go to propose something like this to the community? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) It seems to me there are two separate issues here:
  1. Should {{ArticleHistory}} include more info for the dyk stuff?
    I'm not necessarily opposed to that. You would have to raise the issue at Template talk:ArticleHistory, though, as I don't have control over what goes into that template; people may have issues there about what exactly should be included, how it should be worded, etc.
  2. Should new DYK articles get tagged with ArticleHistory rather than {{DYK talk}}?
    I'm not sure this is necessary given that the majority of these articles will never go through any of the other processes that ArticleHistory records (e.g. GA, FA, etc.), and if the only thing there is the DYK entry I don't think it's any more informative than {{DYK talk}}.
rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point, and I'll bring it all up on Template talk:ArticleHistory then. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dare I ask[edit]

... 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)

Chinese name[edit]

Hi Rjanag! I notice your removal of information at

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:
Please pay careful attention to the wording of these sentences; there is a difference between "rarely" and "never".
I am going to make a post on WikiProject China about this, so that everybody can see what's going on.
Also, about "WP:V doesn't require us to include sources we know are making incorrect claims." - People tried using that rationale in order to say "Barack Obama's not African-American" and the answer is "most reliable sources say so, so we say so" - See Talk:Barack_Obama FAQ Question 2: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say,[...]"
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion continued at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Chinese_names_in_English - I will respond to the claim about Zhang Ziyi there - WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the issue of checklists in review templates[edit]

I was hoping, and in fact I proposed,[4] that you would include one of your own proposed table-checklist forms in the DYK review template that you created. It would be a mature and helpful step on your part toward peaceful consensus at WT:DYK. Sharktopus talk 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I decided not to bother submitting a DYK nomination[edit]

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

For what it's worth, I agree with all your complaints about this issue. That template was put together hastily by someone with no experience in these sorts of things, and who insisted on adding it to every nomination he could find without waiting for a discussion to work out all the issues that you have mentioned. There are some discussions going on at WT:DYK regarding various aspects of this; personally I think these checklists shouldn't have been implemented until all these concerns had been discussed beforehand and a clear set of instructions had been made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done about this? Sounds like a kind of rogue action, but it is going to scare people away from doing DYK nominations - possibly permanently. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This went on a lot longer than it should have, but it looks like the discussion here finally yielded a clear consensus that that user doesn't have the right to keep adding the template everywhere. I don't think it will be added anymore except by reviewers actually choosing for themselves to use it. (If I notice other editors blanket-adding it to all noms, I'll just remove it). In the meantime, I'm still working on trying to make a template that doesn't have the kinds of problems you mentioned above; there are discussions at WT:DYK#Straw poll on signatures in the review template, WT:DYK#The review checklist, redux, and WT:DYK#Review checklist templates. (Although those haven't gotten much feedback, since many people there right now seem more interested in having fights than in getting anything done....) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm - I noticed that some nominations are being reviewed under the "old" system, without the template. So I went ahead and reviewed a nomination the way I used to, and then submitted my own nomination. Will be interesting to see if it gets accepted as a valid review. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's fine to review without using the template. Despite User:Tony1's threats to the contrary, no one has any right to reject a nomination for not using that particular review template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

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

16 of 240[edit]

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.[5] 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)

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

Children's Museum backstage pass[edit]

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Welcome Center.jpg
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)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Coding issue?[edit]

Hi Rjanag, I have noticed that although some promoted/rejected noms are no longer appearing on T:TDYK, their templates still exist on the page. For example, on August 12 there are only five noms remaining, but in the edit window there are still 16 noms listed. Is this WAD, or something you have overlooked? If it's WAD, we may have to add something to the instructions with regards to the promotion/rejection procedure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is intentional. I wanted to minimize the number of edits needed to promote hooks, so all promoting happens from the subpage itself (promoting the subpage causes it to become invisible on T:TDYK); otherwise I think it would have been a pain for people assembling preps to have to not only copy hooks and credits from a subpage and paste them to the prep, but also open another window to find the templates on T:TDYK and remove them. The idea is then that the templates won't show up at all on T:TDYK, and they can all be removed together when all the noms in that day are resolved; people doing the promoting or rejecting never have to worry about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I thought they might need to be removed to make the DYK table on the queue page work properly, but I guess Shubinator is going to have to completely rewrite that to make the table work with the new system anyhow.
The T:TDYK instructions however still include the following statement: On Template talk:Did you know, it replaces the full discussion with just a link to the discussion, indicating that the discussion is no longer active. I think that is redundant now isn't it? In which case you won't mind if I remove it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, that part should be updated now that we got rid of those leftover "promoted by..." links. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with template-less reviews[edit]

I don't know if you saw this recent sampling of quickie review summaries: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Depth_of_review. Could you please soon add some review guideline of some kind to the nomination template? Sharktopus talk 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look back at those older discussions and make an executive decision about which version to use (or which versions to trial). I'll try to have a look soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response -- and also of course for all the work you have already done on this. Sharktopus talk 01:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodney King and Red Links[edit]

Thanks for the user talk. The guy who undid the last two times it is a wiki-undo-stalker with an personal vendetta. He offers no positive help or reason why he undo's things, so I gave it no weight. The edit prior said that my intro had some typo's so I corrected them. I really could care less. There was flag on top of the current into that I am about to put back up there saying that it was inadequate and didn't comply. Tried to help, but oh well. God Bless. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Thought they were previous articles that were broken. Will be more careful. Thanks!

Conflict Resolution Request[edit]

Could you take a look at the ORIGINAL Rodney King edit and assess whether that flag needs to be removed, per discussion notes. Thanks!

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GrubHub Food Delivery nomination[edit]

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 [6] because I thought it's probably not needed in most cases (once a reviewer opens the history it should be obvious whether they're looking at a new creation or an expansion, and in the rare cases where it's not obvious--such as a move from userspace--the user can leave a |comment=). I figured I'd try to make nominators fill out as little stuff as possible. It's still possible to specify the |status= when nominating and it behaves as usual; it's just not required. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I worry for all those articles that have sat in user space for a while before being moved to article space; even when its pointed out it can be overlooked. Thanks for all the work on the template. Works great! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template question[edit]

I am unfamiliar with the template used at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde Tavern (Iowa). The Neutrality part says that it is a bit weasely, but the reviewer fixed it himself. The Interest area is blank. I have no idea if it is a pass or not and what to make of the template. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It can't be passed until all areas have a green check. If an area is blank, you are free to review it or check it itself; if an area has a concern (e.g., "a bit weasely") but the concern has since been addressed, you are free to remove that concern and replace it with your own green check (using the code that is already included there inside the <!- -> marks.
I haven't yet gotten around to writing up clear instructions on the usage of this template because, to be honest, I haven't even finished making the template yet. I didn't really get much feedback on the questions I had when designing it, and I didn't expect that people would be using it now when we haven't yet reached an agreement on how the template should be made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I only came here to say that I use the templates (Template:DYK article checklist and Template:DYK hook checklist) as they are as good as anything that allows me to be sure that all the critical points have been addressed. I like it because it's visual, concise, and encapsulates all the points. As to the two boxes I left blank in my review, I'm a bit unsure as to the credentials of the Sterns, but I just assumed that they were fairly well regarded but local food boffins. I'm a bit wary of the use of passive voice, but this still exists in the hook, which is what that problem was referring to. I'm not sure how that can be addressed, or whether that's the usual DYK way of creating 'interest'. I found the hook marginally interesting, so I left it blank in case anybody wanted to express their opinion for or against. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerrymadering (film) DYK[edit]

  • You are quite right, sorry I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Do you think the district map would be an appropriate image then to go with the DYK?--Ratio:Scripta · [ Talk ] 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Personally I think it's not a great image to use; it's not actually an illustration of the subject of the article, it's just an illustration that is somewhat related. Plus, it doesn't show up well at small size. Some DYKs are just better without images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • sorry about moving the template. --Ratio:Scripta · [ Talk ] 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK Notice[edit]

Thank you for your info. Will i have to repost the DYK? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Review template preferences[edit]

Hi, it was suggested we put feedback on the issue of what template to use here? I do appreciate your trying to come up with templates to satisfy the mandate of the RfC (which I never even saw, I was staying away from that awful discussion page at the time on principle). The trouble is I don't really have any preference, except insofar as both of the alternatives I've seen you put forward in the last couple of weeks are relatively unmassive and therefore vastly preferable IMO to Tony1's. I'd really rather the use of templates in reviews be the reviewer's choice. Some people like them, some people don't, I don't consider the RfC to have been a very good expression of the feelings of those who have to do Quid Pro Quo reviews but if it's going to stand, I understand what it actually said was that reviews must explicitly refer to all the items on a list that amounted to Wikipedia policy plus DYK policy, so I see no reason why that should compel all reviewers to do it either with a checklist template or without one. But I genuinely don't have much of a preference when it comes to deciding between your templates - which is why I have never spoken up when you've asked. So there's my feedback, pretty useless though it is :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Further to my comment above, as a reviewer, and as somebody who occasionally looks over reviews, I prefer the presence of a template such as yours to no template. The lack of a review template makes me uncertain what work has been done by a previous reviewer and what remains to be done. I guess Tony's template looks more intimidating, but the work behind it works out to be the same because you can't skate over or fudge the requirements any more. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to be careful[edit]

DYK Canadas Wonderland[edit]

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 adding to the DYK nomination review for West Wing Week.[edit]

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For doing so much so well and for so long to improve Wikipedia, whether you want to agree that you're improving it or not! The encyclopedia is better because of you and your work. Now, if only we could make all of the people happy all of the time, I am sure you could figure out some way to put that in code. Sharktopus talk 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work[edit]

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 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? Your addition in of itself isn't wrong, it's just that information like that needs a more reliable source (blog sources are usually not acceptable for negative information about negative people). If you can look up, for instance, a newspaper article where this was reported (there is probably one linked from the Shanghaiist post; I haven't looked carefully) that would probably be acceptable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies[edit]

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)


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

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)

Requesting your help in deleting user pages[edit]

Hello Rjanag. Could you help me delete a few sandboxes that I'm no longer working on? The list is here on top of my user page. If you don't have time, just let me know, and I will ask another admin to help. On a different subject, I think we're getting close to a solution at Joseon Dynasty, where you have been an indefatigable and incredibly patient mediator. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for all your hard work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Could you please restore my "Chronology of the Boxer Uprising"? I think you deleted it by mistake along with "Chronology of the Boxer Rebellion"! Thank you and all the best, Madalibi (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png 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)

Re:Tom Skinner[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Grutness. A dozen sources were posted in the AfD for New Zealand Young Farmers and Grutness seemed happy about him expanding it in the AfD. I nominated it for DYK thinking that he is an admin with good article experience so I just nominated it without looking at his non-existent job of sourcing the article. Yes, I did fuck up and I admitted that in the DYK nomination but my point is that I think that he is a liar in response to his contributions - Template:Did you know nominations/New Zealand Young Farmers. He has since blanked his user page and posted on his user page that he will stop editing. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, could you take a look at what I posted at Talk:Tom Skinner? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding DYK noms?[edit]

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)

Your Signature[edit]

This is just a bit of an annoyance to me, but... please link your signature to your userpage, instead of only your contributions and talk. I wanted to see it today, but I had to go to your talk page first to arrive at it. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My signature used to be like that, but I felt that my user page is less useful than my talk page and contribs; it's still easy enough to access and I think being able to get to someone's talk page or contribs with one click serves more purpose than being able to get to their userpage in one click. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Golden Lion Templates[edit]

It is common to use this style of templating. See {{BAFTA Best Film}}, {{Palme d'Or}}, {{Academy Award Best Original Screenplay}}, and {{Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama}}. The point is to reduce the number of links while providing the same detail by a linked network of templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FOUR service recognition[edit]

Thanks to your creation of the Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles, I have been able to properly research the history of WP:FOUR and credit all appropriate articles. I finished that task today and wanted to recognize your service in creating the mechanism to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 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.[8]--My76Strat (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2's edit to Trot (music)[edit]

Hi Rjanag. User:Melonbarmonster2 blanked the edit already discussed in that talk page without any discussion. Please keep paying attention to the article. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall having any previous involvement in this article; if you think Melonbarmonster is edit warring, your best option would probably be to mention him at AN3 and mention his block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs[edit]

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[edit]

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:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png 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)

BRD and slow EWing[edit]

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)

Complex-compound sentence[edit]

??? 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)

DYK issue[edit]

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)

Interview for the 2011 Wikipedia Fundraiser[edit]

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 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For persistent, quality work at DYK (including fixing a mistake I made). Noleander (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Epoch Times[edit]

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[edit]


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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anjali Gupta[edit]


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)

Template:Did you know nominations/C. A. Patrides[edit]

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.)
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor[edit]

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)

Reviewing DYK hooks[edit]

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)

Help to move a page[edit]

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)

Straw poll over at DYK[edit]

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. PanydThe 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. PanydThe 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)

re: signing[edit]

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)


No understand, please speak Chinese or Japanese. Closely. Thank you very much.--俠刀行 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
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)

External Links and interviews these creators have done[edit]

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)

One of your edits[edit]

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 (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)

You keep removing my image[edit]

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)

You're right about not shouting[edit]

Thanks for the decapitalizing my shouting. TCO (Reviews needed) 17:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk back 俠刀行[edit]

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

Christ Carrying the Cross[edit]

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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Kubatzki[edit]

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)

Template at WT:DYK[edit]

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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Poo Kong[edit]

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)

My user page[edit]

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)

a dispute over editing[edit]

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:


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)

Grammatical Aspect Lock[edit]

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)

MSU Interview[edit]

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 (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 I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pinsk massacre[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at User:俠刀行/Translations in question.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • 看看哪一句对。--俠刀行 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

About the grammar[edit]

  • 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)

Precision at WP:TITLE[edit]

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)

Rare Disease Day - too many organizations involved, to cite only a few?[edit]

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 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: [9]. 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)

The guardian is tendered a humble request:[edit]

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)

Could you take a look at this page?[edit]

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[10] and after[11]) 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:[12][13][14]

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)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg 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)

A little help[edit]


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)

You are so great[edit]

=BlueFish35!talk/contribs 17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent Banner Removal[edit]

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Uw-ew[edit]

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)

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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)

Merge discussion for Vogue (magazine)[edit]

Information.svg 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. (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)

WP:RS check for Randa Mai[edit]

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 [15]. 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)

Fair use[edit]

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! Belchfire-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. Belchfire-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)

Question for you[edit]

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)

South Korea[edit]

Please do not remove without permission without basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous sensible (talkcontribs) 11:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"even the reality of "nouns" and "verbs" is disputed"[edit]

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)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition[edit]

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)

autoconfirmed user[edit]

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)

autoconfirmed user[edit]

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)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update[edit]

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:

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)

Propose a DYN in a more constructive[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Meeting Den![edit]

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)

Help with Template[edit]

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)

DYK template[edit]

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)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Nice to have met you, even if it's only Wikipedia :) Icedwater (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Category explanation needed[edit]

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] ? (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. (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 (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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Talk:Mahāvīra#Article_name:_Mahavira_or_Mah.C4.81v.C4.ABra.
Message added 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles[edit]

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia.
Message added 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Yes check.svg 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)

DYK RfC[edit]

  • 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)

A Guinness for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Muggeseggele[edit]

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)

Another type of coding error[edit]

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)

"Edit more responsibly"[edit]

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)

Jessica Alba Edit[edit]

You dont see that the source says she is Spanish?

"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:

The video of her getting the results is on youtube which mentions her DNA test:

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)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

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

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 (やや) 13:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of section[edit]

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)

Renminbi terminology in Xinjiang[edit]

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? --benlisquareTCE 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)

Possible nomination for an FA upgrade of a GA wikipage[edit]

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. (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

2009 Urumqi riot article[edit]

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)

No consensus for your unilateral move[edit]

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)

2014 Kunming attack[edit]

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)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2012 (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)

TfD notice[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Kenyon College[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate: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)

We need Kringle ![edit]

Hi! You promised us a Kringle-photo before Christmas 2011. Do have good photo perhaps?

RhinoMind (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Involuntary health consequences listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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)

Request for comment[edit]

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)

Justin Gaethje[edit]

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

Sarawagi Group[edit]

The history is too complicated for prod. Please use afd DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Same sockpuppet keeps returning and apparently watches the article[edit]

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)