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.

Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese

Severely needs copyediting and referencing. May be of interest to you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing template usage, okay, but did you mean to get political?

I don't actually like to watch the insane panics when people get inordinately upset at changes that verge on politics, so I kinda want to ask "did you mean it?". Your change of templates had the (unintended?) effect of reordering the traditional/simplified presentations in Standard_Mandarin#Native_names. It was simp/trad, and now is trad/simp, and possibly because you explicitly said to put traditional first (I'm guessing at what "|first=t|" means).

I really wouldn't be surprised if someone starts saying "but it says mainland China first and you have traditional first - you have messed up things!"

I'm not going to check around where else something like this might've happened, because I'm already nervous. Just wondering if you've thought about the (political) side-effects of reorganization? :-( Shenme (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake; I didn't mean to add first=t there, it was an unintentional reorganization. In actuality, I'm trying my best to avoid reorganization.

In some articles (ie, Taiwan- and Hong Kong-related ones), it's more appropriate to have trad. characters first, and that was reflected in the templates used there (for instance, templates like zh-tscyp or whatever put the traditional first automatically), so when I replaced them I added |first=t to make sure they wouldn't get reorganized. It looks like this time I accidentally included |first=t when I shouldn't; seems that {{zh-tspl}}, which I was replacing, is deceptive (it has t first in its name, but it actually shows simplified first). When I remember AWBing that last night, the pages that transcluded it were a mix of mainland and Taiwan-related topics (there were 50-some ROC baseball players in there, for example), and on several articles I was manually going in and removing the |first=t before AWB put it in; must have just missed a few on this article. Thanks for the notice, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

95.25.237.61 - IP user's disruption

Hi, Rjanag, since you're an active admin, please look into the disruptions carried by 95.25.237.61 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)? The IP user has changed the names of Korean athletic players during the Japanese occupation period to Japanese name.[1] As if they were still holding Japanese name and citizenship after the liberation in 1945. The IP user has also added information without sources, but deleted something that he dislikes for his POV in the name of "no citation" and "NPOV". The anon's edits are of course neutral to himself/herself only. I think the person reminds me of some Russian POV pusher or open proxy editor disguising a third person. Your administrative actions or editor's input would be appreciated. Talk:List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#Koreans. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input.--Caspian blue 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Daryl Copeland page - Re-Post - No copyright infringement

Hello,

You have deleted the page for Daryl Copeland citing copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Copeland

There is no copyright infringement. Some of the text is the same as Mr. Copeland wrote it. As can be seen on the referenced web page, Mr. Copeland is part of that organization.

The text appears on several other sites by Mr. Copeland as well. This does not make it copyright infringement.

What was the rationale to take it down?

No message was sent indicating that the page was deleted due a copyright concern as is supposed to occur.

Please put the page back online right away.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularities (talk • contribs)

The failure to send you a message regarding the deletion is not my issue; that would have been the responsibility of User:Jpeeling, the editor who originally tagged the article for deletion. Normally the editor who tags an article also leaves a message informing the creator.

As for the copyright issues... well, first of all, whether or not Copeland wrote that text is irrelevant unless you are Copeland. To be able to post copyrighted text and claim you have the right, you need to prove that you are the person who owns that text; that is generally done by contacting Wikipedia's OTRS e-mail team through Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit. That being said, even if you do own the copyright to that text, there are several reasons not to restore the article:

1. Writing quality: even if you wrote text somewhere else, Wikipedia is its own source and should have its own writing. Directly copying-and-pasting text from elsewhere, even when it's not outright copyright violation, is often plagiarism, and is almost always lazy writing. It reflects poorly on the encyclopedia (when people find an article here and see that it's copied from elsewhere—they don't generally know the copyright background and will assume Wikipedia is full of plagiarism). If you really want to start an article about Copeland, you should do so in your own words.
2. Notability concerns and conflict of interest. If you are Mr. Copeland and hold the copyright to this text, then you are in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia guidelines (linked just above) strongly discourage writing articles about yourself, as it will be just about impossible to write from a neutral point of view. Also, the article needs to demonstrate why the individual meets Wikipedia's notability policy, which text copied from other websites usually does not do.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you will find the updated document allays any concerns you may have had. Thank you.

unima-usa

Hi The article on unima-usa was my first attempt at wikipedia article Unima is listed in wikepedia there is the standard wikipedia note saying that no article exists on unima-usa

It was my understanding that" Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" is justification for creating an article

unima united kingdom and unima Pakistan have articles

I am new to this

how can i get an article on unima-usa added? Steve Abrams, Vice President unima-usa north american editor of the World Encyclopedia of Puppetry Arts

thx

Thaaaank you. This has been going on for days with ~20 Portugal-based IPs finding 4 or 5 different sources for the same junk... tiresome & tedious Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raptor Education Group

Hi Rjanag. Could you please userfy Raptor Education Group Inc. for me? It's been blogged here and I'd like to see what's going on. But if it was all copyvio, never mind, about userfying, just let me know. Thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Clayoquot/Raptor Education Group Inc. for now; it is borderline copyvio (clear plagiarism, but only borderline copyvio), so I'll probably re-delete it after you've had a chance to look at it. Since the blog post is from September 4 and I only deleted it yesterday, I imagine the blog is referring to this revision of it, where it was tagged for speedy deletion (and declined) back in July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest, I don't see the copyvio here. It seems that an effort has been made to change wordings. Notability is questionable, and neither of the cited references establishes notability. One of them is a broken link and the other one is not independent. But if these people have been doing good work for 19 years, I think there's a reasonable chance that someone could find sources somewhere. I'd take it to AfD if I were you, even if only to have the community take responsibility for the deletion rather than shouldering it all yourself. Just a thought. Best regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the entire text of http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm is present there; a few words and sentences are added here and there, but the website is copied in its entirety. And, as I always say when performing speedy deletions, an article like this is obvious plagiarism even if it's not certainly copyvio (like I said above, the copyvio here is borderline, and the plagiarism certain). If you think the subject is noteworthy, you're welcome to recreate the article without copyvio, or just as a stub; there's not really any reason for me to take it to AfD now since it's already deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The organization's mission statement should be in quotation marks and attributed, but with these I'm pretty sure it could be included verbatim as fair use. The part about it permits is also the kind of thing that should not be rephrased, because any rephrasing would make it less accurate. Anyway, just sharing my opinions. Thanks for chatting. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clayoquot: this does not look like a copyvio, nor suitable for an A7 deletion. By volume of animals treated alone it is a significant animal rehabilitation center; and it was better sourced than many articles we choose to keep. When someone questions a speedy deletion, and an author or interested party is obviously distressed by said deletion, those are two reasons to take it to AfD. Having one's work deleted, whatever the cause, is often grounds to leave Wikipedia and not return; and we would like to attract contributors (who will become better contributors in time, and never start out perfectly) rather than animosity.

As you suggest above, I've recreated the article. +sj+ 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You think it's not copyvio, and yet it's full of sentences literally copied and pasted from http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm ? I suggested recreating it as a stub, not recreating it as plagiarism. Like it says on my userpage: you're never going to get me to apologize for deleting plagiarized junk, it's not something we need on Wikipedia.

I see no need to take it to AfD now because I've tried to clean up the copied-and-pasted sentences and I don't really care about the notability concern. But please don't re-create plagiarism in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And as for your argument about user retention... maybe you could check the article history before making arguments like this. The article was created a year ago, so the editor has either moved on from now or already learned his lesson. In this case, the editor had been gone for two weeks and was not likely to be back anytime soon, so you can't expect me to 'work with' an absent editor to clean up plagiarism. And are you saying that user retention is so important we should leave plagiarism in the encyclopedia, just on the gamble that that user might turn into a productive editor someday (keeping in mind that the vast majority of new accounts here do not become productive)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New Signature

Hey, thanks for the code --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier on Main Page

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 3, 2009. Shubinator (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to see the TFA queue scheduled so far ahead! Thanks for the update, I'll have to inform my Chinese pals to keep their eyes out... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Raul just did a bunch up to the 4th. With the bigger queue proofreaders like Art can catch more mistakes. Plus the FA nominator gets time to spread the word. Shubinator (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MYSPACE COMMENT

You're right about that but is it bad to chat with friends while editing? 63.230.167.170 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking through your contributions, it would appear you aren't editing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun (film)

Comments as to other editor's work are not suitable for edit summaries, but the associated article talk page can be the appropriate venue as long as the evaluation was constructive. Did you consider your recent commentary to be helpful or useful? (A disclaimer, The recent comments made are "water on a duck's back" in my case as my contributions to the article revolved around assisting the primary editor, whose work and effort was considerable to take an article from a moribund state to qualifying as GA candidate.) The edits that were instituted can be further characterized as simply "author's choice" edits and do not substantially change the thrust of the passages, as I showed in a further revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

You recent note brings up valid and cogent points of divergence; I may have missed something in seeing these statements in other forums? on the article talk page? If substantial revisions are required then it is customary although under WP:Bold not necessary to address those concerns in a preliminary way. FWiW, the plot section of a movie article is, in many cases, an author's vehicle and rarely requires more than a summary. Be assured that it is not disagreement with your edits that was the issue, it was the manner in which the edit comments were used as a rhetorical device, one that was more "stream-of-consciousness" than balanced and constructive. Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Our discourse seems to be going in two different paths. I do not disagree with your analysis of the plot nor the revisions that you provided. In that regard, I made a rudimentary edit to show that the syntax and "word styling" was merely "wordsmithing" which is entirely an author's choice (a publisher's term for allowance of individual styles of expression). What was most at issue was not the revisions but the manner in which they were being described as correcting some "drivel" which can be difficult to construe in anything other than let's say, uncomplimentary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" was the subject of numerous research efforts as to ethonology. Reviewing contemporary sources and every authoritative reference on the P-51 Mustang has led to the conclusion that there is no World War II origin for the word. All this revolves around the dreaded WP:OR and has led to lively discussions with P-51 pilots, museum curators and historians, none of which can provide substantiation for the phrase, while I can point directly to Ballard's use of the literary device. He was crudely trying to assert the industrial iconography of the Cadillac to the equally redoubtable fighter aircraft. I consider it a crude device as the GM Company was indeed involved in war production, but ironically, the Packard Company produced the RR Merlin engine used in the P-51. In Ballard's elaborate "connections to home", Jim wanders a scrapyard in China to discover his father's Packard sedan. Regardless, there is no source that can identify the catchword as wartime in origin. FWiW, the use of the term "Mandarin lettering" was an unfortunate use of the verbatim terminology in the original source document. Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC).Now, don't over-react on the term, it was what the text used, and after your edit, I retrieved the magazine article and checked the source to see if they had used the word "Mandarin" which it had. Using one word does not imply a copy-viol. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" reference has gone the way of the "Billy the Kid/William Bonney" conundrum in that when the legend reads, sounds, looks better than the truth, go with the epic story. I totally embarrassed myself this summer at an air show when the announcer proclaimed the next attraction would be the "Cadillac of the skies", and consequently, a brace of P-51 Mustangs took to the air. I sought him out after the event and asked if he could identify the source of the statement. Not only was he a P-51 Mustang pilot and owner, he was a highly regarded member of the warbird community and basically treated me like the twit I am. He carefully enunciated that he knew that the phrase was from a movie, but who cares, everyone now links it to the P-51, and you know what we old fighter guys think of you know-it-alls? (He didn't actually express the last exchange, but I KNOW he was thinking that!) FWiW, the actual phrase used by Ballard was "Cadillac of air combat" (p. 151) while the screenplay converts that to a number of comments, using the phraseology of "Cadillac of the skies". Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

I have to admit that I am actually enjoying this back-and-forth, as I had placed the edit comment in a kind of snobbish, "so there" kind of way, firmly believing that your original statements were out of the line (which I still believe...) but your recourse to reasoned, articulate discourse has completely disarmed me. As to attribution to a source that I authored, that may be problematic. As a historian (yes, you have to be officially recognized as such in Canada), with nine books and 13 films in my resume, my research on the P-51 Mustang can be traced to a meager two articles for publication and neither dealt with the origins of the type except in a perfunctory way. FWiW Bzuk (talk).

Admin edits

Could you please help with renaming File:24042008354.jpg, File:24042008350.jpg and File:24042008391.jpg as per the rationale given in the "rename media" template requests? Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should be done now. Let me know if there are any problems, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I looked it up in _two_ dictionaries... :-) Shenme (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you're right. Thanks for catching that! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pic Deletion 9/27/09

So on the terms that my picture isn't "qualified" for an encylopedia means it can't give my user page some flair? I feel then ALL pictures should be removed from user pages and all the userboxes. It doesn't make sence to me I'm sorry Spzmnky (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The multiple file names was not a circumnavigation, if you looked at the time stamps they were uploaded the same day. Try doing some research before threatening and assuming what is going on, did you ever think that I still don't have a full grasp on how to do a whole lot on WP? If Iknew how to delet a file I uploaded I would have.Spzmnky (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek at West Germany

As you just have protected the article there, please have a look at the conduct of User:Jacurek, who is wikistalking me. He had never edited this article before, and now he is reverting my edits in an attempt to provoke me. Jacurek and other Polish editors are currently under scrutiny by Arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list for such disruptive behaviour. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Try discussing the actual article with him instead of worrying about behavioral and stalking issues. I'm sure you'll be able to get a lot more done if you talk about the article itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing like you did at Elisabeth Hevelius? You seem to apply good faith in rather unequal quantities. Have you read Talk:Elisabeth Hevelius? You have reverted to a version that had already been exposed to contain the false claim that a book contains "Elżbieta Heweliusz". Knowing this now, I believe you want to revert your edit. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks.-- Matthead  Discuß   22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If people like Flroian want to make reverts, they would do well to leave edit summaries explaining why. That whole back-and-forth could have been avoided if she had taken the five seconds to say what I said in my edit summary. Next time she reverts like that she's blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What does an edit to an unrelated page have to do with this conflict? Please don't keep changing the subject. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. I have also received a friendly warning I will fully respect. Just to let you know since there is a lot more to it, the user User_talk:Matthead is currently under editing restrictions[[2]] due to his controversial edits and reverts in the past. He cannot revert more than once etc, etc. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That restriction only appears to be about civility, not edit warring. And it's from January 2008, so I don't know if it's even still active. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually reverting too but that is o.k. I'm not asking for anything, just to let you know that you are not dealing with problem free editor. Thanks, regards--Jacurek (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. Your warning will be respected.--Jacurek (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

That was quite helpful. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

your message

I will keep that in mind. I can take it from the usual vandals and other such people but when I hear it from administrators who I tend to see as being more mature and responsible, it just makes me a little more irritated. Particularly because their opinion of me is going to carry more weight and if they say that I am just power hungry than many people will actually believe them, seriously damaging my actual credibility. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 23:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Western Europe map.svg

Why did you delete File talk:Western Europe map.svg? The page does exist, and the image is being used. I had just left a comment there before you deleted it. Hayden120 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The image only exists on commons; it can be discussed there. If you like, I can copy the deleted discussion over to commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that would be appreciated. Hayden120 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ISO dates

There was an Arbcom ruling not to mass de-link any dates for six months unless community consensus rule otherwise. Community consensus has. There are some 60,000 linked ISO dates, de-linking them is non-controversial, but I have only done a very small percentage. It needs to be handed to a bot - and there is one in preparation I understand. However I might be able to pick-up some of the workload on SmackBot's normal runs. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Hm, well I de-link stuff as I go. WP:MOSNUM is now clear that dates should not be linked for auto-formatting purposes. However there may still be a number of people who are protective of certain links, therefore a little caution may be necessary. As I say some date-delinking bot is in the wings. so this should all be history soon. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

HELLO

Hey thanks for the heads up on my talk page. I will make sure to note that and keep editing articles which I HAVE done in the past, thanks for the warning I appreciate it. Also could you please remove my name from your message on User:stephani21's talk page? Thanks Cjones132002 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

User:Matthead

Hello, just a notification, I am considering fulfilling the unblock request by User:Matthead. There's merit in his unblock request: he could reasonably assume that the 1RR restriction on Eastern Europe does not apply to West Germany (there is in fact no possible sense West Germany is part of Eastern Europe, neither geographically nor politically, and the edit he was making was also not related to any political/historical issue related to Eastern Europe). So the situation needs to be judged independently of the restriction, with all participants on equal footing. And then I notice that User:Jacurek made three reverts and wasn't blocked, while Matthead was blocked for two. This makes the block essentially unjust. This is particularly important because we know Jacurek was part of the infamous EE Mailing List and Matthead was one of their declared "enemies" and victims, so we must avoid doing anything that would give the impression of "rewarding" any further provocations and attempts of getting opponents blocked from that side. (See Jacurek's edit [3] earlier on this page, where he was falsely claiming M. was under a general edit restriction in order to get you to block him – given what we know about the background, I would not assume good faith for this false information.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

..and why it was false ?? He is under restrictions[4] I just did not know details and also I did not ask for any block for him, [[5]]go ahead unblock him.--Jacurek (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was false because the 1RR restriction applies only to Eastern European topics and therefore doesn't cover this article. And if you continue lobbying about this, I will block you. You are hereby officially warned for wiki-hounding; next time you do anything that could be interpreted as following your opponents around into edit-wars and/or badmouthing them to administrators will result in a lengthy block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Germany since, it was split into EAST and WEST is related to Eastern Europe. Now you threatening me with block also? M. was restricted for a reason you know? And I'm not lobbing about anything and frankly I don't care if M, is blocked or not. This is my original message to R: Actually reverting too but that is o.k. I'm not asking for anything, just to let you know that you are not dealing with problem free editor. You are under false impression and you are also a party in there[[6]]--Jacurek (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: You are welcome to unblock Matthead if you think it appropriate (Actually, I see you have done so); I have not because, even if this article was not covered by his sanction (keeping in mind that something does not have to be geographically within Eastern Europe to be an Eastern Europe-related topic), edit warring is still a violation and he knew he was doing it—plus, if he thinks that the fact that he can make an argument that this article is not part of his sanctions means he's "entitled" to 3 reverts on it, then he's gaming the system anyway. For what it's worth, I also warned Jacurek about edit warring a few days ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can agree to (slightly) disagree on the evaluation of the 2 (not 3) reverts – if we went by that logic, we could block anybody who ever did two reverts on an article and, if they protested, blame them for gaming the system. BTW, I have also counseled him to let the infobox stand. Sorry for taking action before awaiting your response, but it looked like you had gone offline and probably gone to sleep shortly before I first contacted you, and I didn't want to keep him waiting yet longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was asleep, so no worries :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, thanks for welcoming me. As you are aware I am new to Wikipedia so if I should do anything wrong, please do not take it against me! All the best,


Friendly Ed 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess that makes us two of us

but you could be the "needle of the scale", if you want to be that is.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any idea what you're talking about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. what I meant was… why don't you decide which revision is better?--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not interested in this article or its topic, and don't know anything about it. I'm just here to make sure people aren't editing disruptively. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

quick suggestion

just a quick suggestion on the riots article -- there is some info there (2.3 million people) that should have an as of date with it. Best, --Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i needs a favor

could you place the merger-proposal templates I placed on Talk:West Germany onto the page itself (you protected it)? Thx. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bsr... About DENIP

Bsr... DENIP n'est pas exactement une fête (holiday) puisque est un jour scolaire de travail et de refléxion... Si n'est pas admisible célebration il faut chercher un autre mot... En français et en espagnol nous usons bcp de fois activité pratique... Avec ma amitié... --Ayounali (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

C'est pas un jour férié? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Non, ce n'est pas un jour férié, mais un jour de travail scolaire dédié a refléchir et faire des activités pour prendre conscience des valeurs de la fraternité universelle, de la non-violence et de la paix. Voilà un article en anglais que j'ai trouvé:School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP)

By Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is held on January 30 every year, on the anniversary of the martyrdom in 1948 of Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence.

It will be celebrated, as always, in Majorca. The intiative for this "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" originated in Spain.

In Majorca, it was Llorenç Vidal in 1964 who founded the School Day. He now lives in Cádiz. He was influenced by Lanza del Vasto, a direct disciple of Gandhi. Del Vasto visited Majorca about 15 years ago, and his book "Le Retour aux Origines" ("Return to the Sources"), had an inmediate influence.

The basic message of the "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" states: "Universal Love, Non-violence and Peace. Universal Love is better than egoism. Non-violence is better than violence. Peace is better than war". Non-violence is the attitude of renouncing killing and inflicting pain on all breings in thought, word and action.

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a non-governmental, international and pioneering initiative of Pacificatory Education in which educational centres of all standards and of all the countries are invited to participate.

It is a practical activity which has neither official programming nor structural lines of action, because the message is one which maintains a permanent nucleus of basic aspects, and permits the free application of each educational centre according to its particular manner.

Professor Eulogio Díaz del Corral has written: "The 'School Day of Non-violence and Peace' was founded in Spain in 1964, when neither in Spain nor abroad did a similar initiative exist. It was maintained through hell and high water in very difficult circumstances, and it is considered the most important pioneering experience of Pacificatory Education of our time, as well as a dynamic nocleus of its promotion at a national and international level".

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a seed which is planted and cultivated in the hearts of the students. It is a bright, new and positive way of looking at the word and preparing for the future.

Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

Merci de votre attention...

--Ayounali (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Sorry about that huge disruption that happened, I am not sure who was behind it, but I do hope it doesn't happen again. And for the personal messages they are all done. Thanks --Cjones132002 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

quotes

You're right and I apologize for being sloppy about it. Typographical style at least has the virtue that we don't have to check if the source had punctuation. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CV Objective

Hello there, Can you reply my last question there. It will be much appreciated. Thank you.--119.30.36.34 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Crete

Because one of the users arbitrarily replaced the Template:Infobox Peri GR with the Template:Infobox settlement for no obvious reason. - Sthenel (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Front page!!! :D:D:D

And happy Mid-Autumn Festival. Fitting. ^^ -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully the vandals will be too busy eating mooncakes to trouble us ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the front page. :) Why is the traditional ge pictured, and not the simplified one? I think most people who know only very little Chinese would know the simplified character, but not necessarily the traditional one. Is it possible to change it? GeometryGirl (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The traditional ver is more detailed, while the simplified isn't detailed at all, roughly just "an arrow pointing up" to most people. I'd prefer the traditional in this case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be changed easily, but I went with the traditional to avoid appearing PRC-centric...also, since I personally know simplified (and the article is written in simplified), I figured it would be most balanced to feature the other style (instead of featuring "my" style). There are also people out there who believe traditional is the "international standard" whereas simplified is "PRC only". Also, as traditional characters go, 個 is probably one of the most recognizable ones for Chinese learners (others that I learned pretty early were 對 and 學). Anyway, I did put together a mock-up a while ago of a main page with both, but I think it looked too crowded:

In Chinese, classifiers are words that must be used whenever a noun is modified by a number or a demonstrative such as "this" and "that". There are as many as 150 different classifiers, and many nouns are associated with certain ones—for example, flat objects such as tables use the classifier zhāng, whereas long objects such lines use tiáo. How exactly these classifier–noun associations are formed has been a subject of debate, with some linguists proposing that they are based on innate semantic features (i.e., all nouns with "long" features use a certain classifier), and others suggesting that they are motivated by analogy to prototypical pairings (i.e., dictionaries and textbooks use whatever the more general noun, "book", uses). There is also, however, a "general classifier", gè, which can be used in place of the specific classifiers; in informal speech, this one is used far more than any other. Furthermore, speakers often choose to use only a bare noun, dropping both the classifier and the number or demonstrative preceding it; therefore, some linguists believe that classifiers are used more for pragmatic reasons, such as foregrounding new information, rather than for strict grammatical reasons. (more...)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! The article really graces the front page. Ricardiana (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, great work here; it explains an important but difficult concept admirably. Nice in-joke as well, using this... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey Rjanag, thanks for the help with the Beale article while I was out. The subject is on my talk page, and while I've tried explaining it to him, I think a note from the deleter would help out a bit. ;) Thanks \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

是啊，很好笑吧？说我的编辑是mumbo-jumbo，你简直在耻笑中国人的智慧。我对於你这麽说感到遗憾，希望你下次撤回编辑时，不要抱着说笑的心态！--俠刀行 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

”中国人的智慧“我的屁。。。你编辑的并不是智慧，那是不需要的额外句子。此外，你的翻译是错的： "the cars in the road" 是没有动词的句子，应该翻成“马路上的车辆“。可是这种例句不需要，那里已经有例子。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• 好啦，你很行。我只是多加几个字就要被你冷言冷语，西方人都来这套吗？还有我发觉你们西方人比不上日本人，日本人都会明确告知哪里有问题，该注意什麽。你们是不是该改进？--俠刀行 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 其实我觉得我第一次看你编辑有点误会，那时以为是不相于的 可是看错了，现在看得到你的编辑还是有关--抱歉。可是，我还觉得不需要，尤其是在小相片下面，没有空间。再说，如果要加什么usage例句，一定要注意翻译是正确的。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• 没关系，我还是会原谅你--俠刀行 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 谢谢。中文又不是我的母语，所以快地编辑的时候，我会犯错。。。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

where's the page of aricle request for most foreign articles have?

I didn't find this kind of page(Notice:it'n not this wikipedia:article request).In Chinese wikipedia,they have it called 最多語言版本的待撰條目.But I didn't still get a right place,so where's article request which most foreign versions have and english don't?

• 中文：我没找到这种页面(注意不是这页条目请求)。在中文维基，他们有这个叫最多語言版本的待撰条目。但我还是没有到正确的地方，所以多外语版欠缺英语的条目请求在哪里呢？--俠刀行 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 是 Wikipedia:Most wanted articles 吗？ 那是 有最多链入页的文章。 rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • oops, 不是那个。我去打听一下： Wikipedia talk:Most wanted articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe you should ask on Wikipedia:Questions,it would be good there.中文：也许你应该在问题页面发问，会好一点。--俠刀行 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Classifier

I am a cantonese .I not sure if the example gave an accurate account of what the text is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if i've made a mistake.in my opinion,if i want to say:There are clouds in the sky,I would say"天空上有一片雲"(in fact, the chinese version is meaning that there is a cloud in the sky at that moment.).the sentence ”天空一片雲” is not a complete sentence at all,in english,it is something just like "the sky(NOUN) clouds(NOUN)."verb and connectionis are absence in this case.moreover,the word"片"is describing the noun"cloud" but no sky.if we want to describe the word "sky".we could definitely use the word"片",but not in this case.that"s just my opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from 222.166.160.129 has been disabled by Spellcast for the following reason(s):

This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 

BUT WHY THEY SEND ME SUCH A MSG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 小雨點 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the IP address User talk:222.166.160.129, not your account User talk:小雨點. If you couldn't edit, that means you were not signed in. The fact that you can leave a message on my page right now means your account is not blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly one of the most confused part of chinese usage.The sentence 天空突然一片辽阔 is, in fact,should be wirite as 天空突然變得一片辽阔, but for better pronouncing reason or in informal case like lyric ,we can leave it out.of course,this is just exceptional case.no matter in daily life, or formal writing,it is better for us to write 天空突然變得一片辽阔. 小雨點 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to challenge you. in fact,I am interested in discussing this topic BUT now is almost 3:30am...... maybe you or I mess up sth as i cannot totally agree with you.but you're right as that's not the main argument .perhaps we can continue in discussing this topic later on because i really doubt if the number+classifier (一片) phrase is being used after the noun and expressing "the entire" (整个).小雨點 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't pay attention to that blog,sorry.中文：我没注意到那个部落客，抱歉。--俠刀行 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

没事 :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

我的英语

我英语是en-0，你相信吗？--俠刀行 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

我觉得最好en-1,因为你也可以用基本的英语交流。。。 还有，你大概是zh（不zh-3），中文是你的母语吧？rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• 不是母语，中文是我的第一外语。--俠刀行 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't change the common English spelling of names

You have recently systematically changed Turfan to Turpan in all Wikipedia pages. This kind of systematic change is quite inappropriate. First of all, Turfan is more common in English texts (you can search on Google Books to check it). Secondly, when 2 spellings are common in English texts, a systematic change of one spelling to the other one (without any prior consensus) is quite wrong. Alefbe (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I did search Google books, news, and web; there are slightly more Turfans on books and web, slightly more Turpans on news. In any case, it's all relatively close, and the difference is not large enough to strongly suggest that one spelling or another is "right"; furthermore, google searching is an inexact science anyway, a google result can't be used as damning evidence one way or another unless the difference is huge. Ultimately, the trump card is that Turpan is the native name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you moved it again. How many times does the definition of "edit warring" need to be explained to you? If you think your title is better and you can get consensus for it, post a request for comment or a request at WP:3O. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

Thanks! I originally thought you were wishing me a happy birthday birthday, but then I realized that it was October, not December. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The last word

I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator. I think it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you, and I think you would do well to remove it. ÷seresin 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)