User talk:Rjanag

Archives

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.

New Years

"Hózhǫ́ǫgo Nińdoohah!"
(~ may the next winter arrive for you while beauty prevails)
...Hoozdoh Hahoodzodę́ę́ʼ
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 1 Yas Niłtʼees 2010

FA

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

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

TaeHanM...

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

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

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

Quick thanks

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Rose/Anthony Roll DYKs

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

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

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

Certifiable

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

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

"Circular links"

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

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

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

My WikiBirthday

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

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

Lexicography

Dear Rjanag,

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

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

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

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

I am an amateur linguist.

Best regards,

Squid Pro Roe 2

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

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

Hi

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

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

Mr.Z-bot

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

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

You are so great

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

video

i was just gonna add the alternative:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sorry about the misunderstanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: mutual intelligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Neptunerover

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

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

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

I see me, soon, doing something like this. Or vice versa.

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

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

Mao

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

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

deletion of material unrelated to your concern

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

deletion process question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming Up Easy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mao: The Unknown Story

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

If the offer still stands...

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

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

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

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

July 2009 Ürümqi riots

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

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

Your sig

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

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

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

• rʨanaɢ

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

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

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

The Nicholas Beale AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Any further messages from NBeale will be deleted from my talk page without reply. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Rjanag. Thank you for taking trouble over the Nicholas Beale AfD. But as you now know, the analysis of the sources you posted, however much in good faith, contains serious errors and mis-statements and is influencing the debate, due to your hard-earned reputation as an Admin. I must respectfully ask you, per WP:BLP and your responsibilites as an Admin, to retract these errors and to do what you can to nullify the harm that they have done. Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Do you go around telling everyone to retract their !vote because you don't agree with it? This is ridiculous. I tried my best to be polite coming into this AfD, yet you have still insisted on acting like a child. I have nothing more to say to this request. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And before you go crying about my "personal attacks", take a look at the AfD—I'm not the only one who is appalled by your immature behavior here. If you can't see the overwhelming consensus against your crusade and can't take the hint, then there's nothing more I can do for you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to vote delete when WP:AUTHOR is clearly met that is up to you. But you really should retract the manifestly false statements that you have made in your "analysis" of the sources. And grad students - however stressed - should not try to lecture grandfathers on "maturity" NBeale (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[And you - should leave your place under that bridge and drop the shopping-bags. Man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)]

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

July 2009 Ürümqi riots info for Chinese views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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