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.

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)

Should I remove this response? I truly feel he's going down some kind of WP:SOAP path, but I'm WP:AGFing and responding politely ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably fine...although if he keeps up you're right that it's probably best just to let him have the last word. It should be clear to the crats that he's harping over a really minor thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 21 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)

Was it you who changed the italicisation of BBC News, etc? If so, was it at the prompting of any FAC comment? AFAIK, italics are usually reserved for traditional (ie paper) journals etc. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I changed all instances of BBC News, etc., to |work= (from |publisher= or |agency=) because that seemed to be what Template:cite news suggested. Based on my reading of it, it sounded like |agency= is only supposed to be used for the agency that wrote and supplied the article (i.e., it's sort of a replacement for |author=) and generally only when that differs from the newspaper/website where we found it (for example, a China Daily article that says the source is Xinhua, or something on ABC news that says the source is AP). Anyway, long story short, the italicization is probably a result of that change.

Of course, I haven't been working with this template for a long time so perhaps that is not the consensus on how things should be used. But that's what the documentation makes it sound like, so if the consensus is different we should probably update the documentation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, '|work=' does italicise. I'll go and sort them out. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

The article looks much better. Good job. I think the material added does balance out the article. We don't have to respect the views of the Chinese government and most Chinese, but it is important that their views are at least represented.David Straub (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it looks better, and I appreciate your taking the effort to find that material (and to press me to get it cleaned up!). Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

July 2009 Ürümqi riots (Vmenkov)

Thanks for the invitation to comment on that article, but, after reading it, I don't think I can suggest any meaningful improvement or offer any meaningful criticism.

Well, OK, there is this one sentence, with a reference to a paper by Dru Gladney: "China's minority policy treats Uyghurs as a 'national minority' rather than an indigenous group." I am sure Dr. Gladney's paper (which I did not look at) probably explains what is meant by these words - he is a major writer on these issues, after all. But to a casual reader this statement sounds rather cryptic. I think that to an average person an "indigenous group" simply is an "ethnic minority" that is officially recognized as having a long-term association with a certain geographic area, and is officially granted certain special rights on account of that association. One would think that the (official) status of the Weiwu'er minzu in PRC -- with the XUAR on the maps, a 维吾尔民族简史 publsihed, an official bilingualism of sorts, and the policy of appointing members of the "titular nationality" to the (possibly figurehead) leadership positions in the region -- makes them just as "officially indigenous" to the region as the Nisga'a are to the Nass River Valley or the Buryats to Buryatia. So if I were to write this, I would perhaps try to explain what Gladney's dichotomy means.

Thinking of it, the preceding sentence "Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since the Han Dynasty", with its "whereas", implies a contradiction of the two point of views, even if it does not explicitly say that there is one. I certainly can imagine some kind of 维吾尔民族简史 talking about 我国维吾尔民族 happily living in the area in 100 BC (or wherever), in such-and-such commandery of the Western Han Dynasty empire...

Please feel free to ignore these comments, or to move them to an appropriate talk page elsewhere.

On an unrelated issue: could you insert proper Uyghur letters into Musa Sayrami, Yaqub Beg, Afaq Khoja, and Muzat River, sometimes when/if you have a chance? Official bilingualism or not, my Atlas of Xinjiang certainly does not have any 少数民族文字 in it! Vmenkov (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, it is a very complex paper, and I've kind of taken the sentence out of context (I was trying to avoid giving Gladney too much weight by going into a ton of detail on it). I'll try to see if I can explain it better—it's always tough to strike a balance between brevity and clarify!

By the way, I've had a go at the Uyghur names. Some require a bit of guesswork, since Romanizations of Uyghur are not consistent throughout history (for example, the "a" in "Muzat River" could be either ئا or ئە, which in ULY are written a and e respectively but have often just both been written a). The only one I couldn't figure out just yet is Musa Sayrami (it could just be that the macrons are confusing me, but also it's a pretty old name), so I might have to ask a friend for help with that one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for Syrami and others! I was surprised to see that for Muza(r)t there are two spellings - with and without an r - in Uyghur as well; I thought it was an artefact of careless transcriptions. And there is even an interwiki, ug:مۇزات دەرياسى - of course, to a perfectly empty page! Vmenkov (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you are probably right then. I pretty much just guessed Uyghur names based on the Latin transcriptions and on the Chinese, which often (but not always) are derived from the Uyghur in a more or less systematic way. I hadn't even noticed the interwiki. But now that you've pointed that out, I corrected the Muzat transcription to match what's in the interwiki, which is more reliable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this help clarify the Gladney quote? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I guess it makes a bit more sense now: it implies to the reader that (according to Gladney, at least) recognizing an ethnic group as an "indigenous" one would require the transfer of land ownership /land control to a governing body specifically representing that ethnic group (and not just linguistic/cultural autonomy, availability of bilingual education, affirmative action, etc within the ethnic group's traditional territory). In other words, no Nisga'a Treaty, or even Gwaii Haanas National Park for the Uyghurs. (One can wonder how common this kind of recognition is world-wide, outside of the US and Canadian Indian bands that have appropriate treaties with their respective federal governments. E.g. Basques are certainly "indigenous" to the Basque Country, and the region has a high degree of autonomy, with its government actively promoting the Basque language and culture. But I am pretty sure that any Spanish citizen residing in the region, regardless of ethnicity, has equal right to purchase land, or to vote for / be elected to local governments controlling the land use... But in any event, such a discussion would be a topic for the Indigenous peoples article, and not for the article in question). Vmenkov (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC-thought (Urumqi-riots)

I'm thinking... just in case the FAC goes through... We're gonna have to find a picture that's suitable for the front-page... I don't think any of the ones we have right now are good for that... (unless you want the damn map, but that'd be kinda cheesy...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I bet we could grab a screenshot from Ccyber's video? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... there is this: File:WLMQ Cellphone screenshots 2v1.jpg. Or was that deemed too extreme or inappropriate for some reason? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate; mainly we just removed it when the video became available, since the video is the better option. (I don't know if they've ever used video for the TFA image, though.) All in all, I think something from that video is the only thing in the article that would really work. For example, the picture of the APCs in September looks good and rioty, but it's not from the actual riots (and we wouldn't want to be accused of making the same sort of flubs that people made in July showing pictures of the wrong riots), plus I think there would be an anti-China POV issue with showing a picture of the crackdown and not showing a picture of the riots. The picture of Kadeer, of course, is a no go since she's just the scapegoat (I'm sure the PRC government would be overjoyed, though, if we put that picture on the front page with the riots article :P). And yeah, other than that all that's really left is the map, and as you say it would be a bit cheesy...plus I think Raul doesn't like using flags and maps.

I think the screenshots already uploaded are a bit small, since it's really four crammed into one. But we could probably hold a brief discussion on what part of the video we want to take, and then have a tech-y person get a higher-resolution screenshot of that. (I don't think we need to worry about taking care of that, though, until the FAC is over :) ) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Just putting this into one more brain before it escapes mine :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick a frame, and I'll get you a high-res image. Just give me the time in milliseconds. :) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"leading schools" and "athletic directors"

Rjanag has changed the correct "athletic directors" to the incorrect "athletics directors." This is my first encounter with Rjanag. He may be British, in which case "athletics" is sometimes heard. In the United States (where I have been editing for nearly forty years) it is "athletic director." And the article title in Wikipedia is "Athletic director," so some other Wikipedia editor than Rjanag got it right. Google Search has the margin 10 to 1 in favor of "athletic" (2,560,000 to 263,000). It's equally lopsided in Google News (8,760 to 1,096). Elsewhere, Rjanag has removed my "leading American schools" -- which was a neutral, necessary, descriptive, definitive cultural shorthand -- in articles about the members of a body of, well, *leading* American schools. Again, it's a question of editorial or cultural "ear," as well as age and professional experience. "Leading schools" is an ancient term and locution, often emanating from headmasters' conferences (especially in the UK), but also often encountered in writing about schools, education, education history, in school directories, in journalism, in descriptions of school associations, and so forth. If eight of the most famous prep schools in the United States compose what Andover's "The Phillipian" has characterized as a "mirror of the Ivy League," then the innocuous phrase "group of leading American schools" is not only permissible, it is necessary, a definer, a describer, a clarifier. Rjanag may work tirelessly in Wikipedia, clearing out the undergrowth. But he doesn't know everything about everything, and in some areas he should try to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldene (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me in the third person, it's both condescending and obnoxious. I will be willing to engage in rational discussion with you once you are willing to do the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would excuse the intrusion on your user page, Rjanag, I agree with you and your removal of peacock terms. And now I will take this to the article talk pages, where Micheldene should have brought his/her condescending statements in the first place. Cheers, --BaronLarf 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not terrible, but a bit of your own medicine

Your very first message to me, a person unknown to you, was titled "Warring" (a concept I'd never heard of) and was itself worse than condescending. It was reactionary, bullying, preremptory and, given your howler about "athletic director," wrong. You demanded to know why I was everywhere undoing your work. I don't know about "undoing." I don't "undo" individual Wikipedia contributors. You were wrong about "athletic director" and you're wrong about the conventional, formulaic, innocuous, and often necessary phrase "leading schools." When you begin to understand that idiomatic fact, I'll change my present opinion that you're incredibly thin-skinned about editorial disagreement. (Incidentally, there isn't enough good writing in Wikipedia for you to be chasing off the professional writers you accidentally attract.) Now, let's start over, beginning with your apology for the bullying tone of that initial message to me.Micheldene (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Others are watching Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm not really in the mood for arguing over "how mean" various messages were or comparing our credentials, so let's please just focus on the content issues at hand. Another editor has already commented at Talk:Eight Schools Association and at Talk:Choate Rosemary Hall#WP:PEACOCK saying that he thinks "leading" is not necessary, so why not continue the discussion there? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thoughts in space

During all my time as a patroller I have never encountered the tradition that warnings are only given "per spurt of vandalism". Could I please get an elaboration about what you are trying to achieve here? Also the account is clearly a vandalism-only account, I fail to see the constructiveness in your attempt at prolonging the existence of this account on Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

During all my time, users have been given a chance to respond to warnings--i.e., to hear them and stop their vandalism. Unless the vandalism is so bad that it warrants a 4im, there's no point giving a user 3 or 4 warnings before he's had a chance to see the first one. I agree that this account is a useless account and will probably never do anything constructive, but we should still be fair when dishing out warnings. Trampling people under our heel, even if they're useless people, doesn't always reflect well on the project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your last part when it comes to dedicated vandals I can only say I disagree wholeheartedly. But let us leave it at that and hope this user has learned their lesson and hopefully abandoned the account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Your edit is being discussed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it just as you were sending this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please sir can I make some changes?

Get a grip man. My edit was perfectly proper. I don't have to discuss edits with you; nobody died and made you head of the wikipedia. The edit was not even controversial except in your head.

If you bother to read WP:LEAD guideline this is the style that leads are supposed to follow wherever possible.

In fact, it's unbelievably clear policy, WP:NAD says (and I did not write this bit):

"However, sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to", with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine."

It's all there, you just haven't read it.- Wolfkeeper 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was so poorly considered, you accidentally removed the most important part of the the article subject: the fact that it refers to suburbs in France. After your edit, it could have been misread as being about any place.

And overall I do not believe your edits are an improvement. This article is not only about the suburbs, there is also information on the word itself. Your rewrite would be more appropriate in an article titled Suburbs in France or something like that. If you believe the article's scope should be changed and the article should be moved, you can start a discussion on the talk page to suggest it, but you shouldn't just go around changing articles to conform to your narrow view of what Wikipedia should be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Except the word is not restricted to outskirts in France, wiktionary:Banlieue nor did your revert make the article say that; and so that was not why you reverted the edit anyway.- Wolfkeeper 05:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, it refers almost exclusively to suburbs of French cities. The wiktionary page has no examples of other usages, and besides it's only a wiktionary page, it's not a reliable source on the matter. Removing mention of French from the first paragraph is not at all constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph said that it was a word in the French language, NOT that it only applied to French cities! And after my edit; the article still said the same thing! This is simply you edit warring, pure and simple. This is completely unacceptable. You do not have a leg to stand on.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments in edit summaries

Just in case you didn't know, comments in edit summaries are seen as more problematic than comments in text because they are part of the server logs and can only be removed by WP:OVERSIGHT. This is not always appreciated, so you're not the first to be bitten by this (as I was myself). Guy (Help!) 10:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Entropa

Dear Rjanag, if wiki should became a valuable resource of proved information you should also let research work have done. Who knows, that all other quoted sources are verified, if you don't let have them checked by someone. I am tired of adding my corrections to the article again and again. I cannot do more, then adding valuable sources and research. Please give me a concrete advice, proved by academics, that adding the 2 footnotes and the one sentence is incorrect. Since you mentioned my both IP addresses, yes, I am working not always on the same place, sorry, and I also do not have time for endless discussions in this so called "Talk Page". Do you really want to protect the Entropa entry from verified sources? Then I must say, I am very sorry for wiki and you should have let checked all the sources by a wiki watch man to verify all entries including footnotes. Thank you 85.127.163.176 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not "let research work be done"—Wikipedia does not accept original research. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are just terrible

I think that you are holding back and censoring verified sources on Wiki entries. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been given ample opportunity to engage in discussion with other editors, but instead you are continuing to edit war when numerous editors disagree with your changes. If you want something to be added, start a discussion at the talk page and make your suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that I made formal mistakes in communication, but I did not have time to check all the rules of wiki how to make entries and communicate them. I am very sorry for this, since I am a normal user and no computer freak. I cannot do more then apologize. And since all this procedure was already cosuming too much time, I think I have to give up. Thank you for your kind help and support. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take a "computer freak" to know how to talk to people. You were given several warnings, and didn't bother to "apologize" until the page was protected. If I hadn't protected it, I imagine you would still be edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not think, that I have to apologize, because my intention was good, but just I did not understand all the warnings. And I did apologize before above. Now I really cannot follow this anymore, I have also other things to do. Thank you. 85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I am not going to lead a public talk to someone about this anymore. It was just, that I did not have time to read carefully the instructions on how to react on the history of an article. I am sorry, but what can I do, now it's too late. And I think, I also don't know now how to use a discussion section on Wiki and doing things wrong and posting things wrong. Have a good day!85.127.163.176 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All the explanation of how to use a discussion section is available in the tutorial. You keep saying you don't have time to participate here anymore and that you need to do other things, but you seem to have tme to keep leaving me messages and looking at my talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Report on Laogai Enterprises

Hi Rjanag, How can this be used for Wikipedia? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK question

If a user expanded a new article (still within it's first five days) from a stub not eligible for DYK due to it's length, can that author who has the overwhelming bulk of the edits list himself as that article's author when nominating it for DYK even if he did not create that page?--Supertouch (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to list yourself as |expander=. But it doesn't really matter, the credits given out are all the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Supertouch (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. I never got around to updating that number, so it's good that you stepped in. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Entropa (2)

Can you explain to me what is going on there? You say have protected the article due to a content dispute, and yet you have only semi-protected it. Essentially, whether intentionally or not, you have used your adminship to take sides in the content dispute (by preventing only the anonymous editor from editing). This is the reason that {{pp-dispute}} doesn't work on semi-protected articles, I believe. In addition, you yourself seem to be one of the ones engaged in the content dispute, so it appears you shouldn't have been acting as an administrator there anyway. Dominic·t 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one anonymous editor warring against at least three established editors; messages were left with him but he never responded, and apparently never looked at them, until after the protection (see just a couple sections above). Attempts to have a discussion were made and failed. Since he was editing from multiple IPs there was no point in blocking, so the next thing to do was semi-protect (which had the same result--keeping the one user from continuing his edit warring behavior). In retrospect I suppose I could have taken it to AN3, but the end result would have been exactly the same. And I don't see the protection having caused any problems—in the discussion above, the unregistered user didn't complain about abuse or anything (other than dropping the usual "censorship" card that people throw around so lightly it's meaningless), and in fact he admitted fault and apologized for his poor communication skills. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Chigurh's condition

You make a good point about using clinical terms. However, it seems like some characterization is in order. 'Sociopathic' has a meaning outside of a professional or clinical context and it's good English to use the word in that way. As a native speaker myself, Chigurh's lack of conscience seems to open the possibility of describing him that way accurately. (I wouldn't base anything on the book either way.) Perhaps it would be useful to propose an alternative. Sometimes the facts don't speak for themselves so we use summaries / characterizations. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I saw the film (and I've never read the book), but I imagine there must be some scene, such as the one where Tommy Lee Jones is explaining who Chigurh is, where some character makes some kind of statement about him. If that could be dug up, it could be used in the article and attributed to that character rather than to us (e.g., "Chigurh is described as a 'sociopath' by the sheriff"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice but it seems that a summary is allowed. We don't have a problem saying many summary things about him (he's a man, a murderer, relentless, an embodiment of evil, etc.). I'm wondering if the line you're drawing isn't a bit artificial. 'Sociopathic' is a word in English that we should feel free to use correctly like any other. In fact, think of it this way: is there any evidence that he's not sociopathic? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jabs" is neutral?

Respectfully, in the interests of our mutual understanding of what is appropriate/inappropriate, and of defending myself against your characterization in the edit summary, I'm a little confused about your characterization of my summary as "jabs" and of JB50000 as defenseless. While the infractions outlined in that RfE were part of the block, they were not the whole of the block, and I suppose because of the technicality that official warnings were required, the real last straw was for offenses that are not mentioned at the RfC, the stealth canvassing/campaigning and the fact (not to mention temerity) that he would go so far as to ask the administrator who was telling him that he wasn't being tag-teamed against that the admin join him in tag-teaming against others. Is it not appropriate to note the further step taken that was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Would you clarify what parts of that post were these plural jabs, as opposed to a neutral summary? Respectfully, it seems like a jab at me, to suggest that my brief summary of the blockable offense of a habitual offender (again, not a recap of the whole thing, but an acknowledgement of what wasn't already a part of the RfE) was an attack on a defenseless person. As I merely encapsulated the posts at his talk page in the official block explanation, the defense would be to allege that they are untrue or unfair, and the block unwarranted, not my brief acknowledgement of them in the note here. My only characterizations that did not appear in the block itself were my positive observations of the admin (exceptional amount of goodwill and patience; helpfully).

Finally, if my wording was too much, might it not be that yours is too little?

I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks for your help with my understanding of these matters, Abrazame (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You were a party in the dispute, so you really shouldn't be jumping in to leave closing remarks after the other user is blocked. And your remark was definitely not neutrally worded; its tone in general was one of criticizing JB and saying "I told you so", with asides like "of course". There's no need for that; it just makes it look like you're trying to get the last word. A link to Kingpin's block, which describes the e-mail issue, is plenty. The rest of the material is all available in the discussion, and there's no need for you to enshrine your own version of it at the top. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, there is nothing about the final impetus for the block in the discussion at the RfE, since it took place in a private e-mail sent after the most recent post therein. That material is entirely limited to the block post at the user's talk page. We generally tell people what salient bit of info we're linking to elsewhere

You are absolutely right that my "of course" goes beyond neutral. My intention was to briefly summarize the actual final impetus for the block, but it should have been briefer and tighter. Given my "of course" I concede it's understandable that "I told you so" could be inferred. I still think "jabs" and "defenseless" are hyperbolic, but that's your prerogative.

I'm not going to push this further here or take it up elsewhere or anything; I accept your judgement here; but for my understanding of this and future issues, is there a guideline you could point me to that states you're not supposed to note what the actual final impetus for a block was at an RfE in instances like this one where that final impetus is not enumerated among the Requests? Something like "The user was blocked for 1 week for infractions enumerated herein as well as X (in this case stealth canvassing/campaigning) as noted here (with a link to the block)"? To not do so is to imply that the entirety of the user's blockable offense is covered at the RfE, and could present a misleading picture of how to successfully build a case for enforcement. If it's inappropriate for the head of the section, is it appropriate at the foot of the section?

Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested NewDYKnom tweak

Hi Rjanag, just a little suggested tweak, I've noticed the string {{-}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line--> appears right below the rest of the output, so that a lot of people ignore it and post below the string. Any chance you could leave some whitespace between the string and the rest of the output? That way I wouldn't have to keep moving the string to the right place :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss this post? Or are you still thinking about your reply? :) Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I did add a space, just must have forgotten to reply :S . Anyway, I checked some noms later and it looks like it's at least correctly adding the space...I guess it remains to be seen if that will cause people to correctly post above it ;). Is this what you had in mind? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I was thinking of two or three spaces. Just one could easily be missed I think, as if you don't look carefully you might think it's just another comment. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbs

The Refdesk Barnstar Your answer was exactly what I needed; you deserve this! DRosenbach (Talk

Edit warring

Hello. Just per your warning on my talk page, I wasn't trying to "spin" anything related to my editing - as I've noted, I stopped editing on the article once I hit my third reversion. I haven't tried to defend my edits or reversions (simply saying "I want less information, he wants more"). I don't want to be a WP:DICK here, but to say you'll give me a warning instead of a block, when I've only made five edits on the article since June of last year (all of which were today - three of which were reversions and hence within 3RR) seems a bit over zealous. As I said on WP:ANI, Cliché's attitude was the reason I brought it there, the 3RR/article issues were very much a side point. Don't feel like you have to reply, just wanted to say it. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:3RR, specifically the clause "3RR is not an entitlement". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

not a lie

The Daily Journal no longer exists in Venezuela, therefore the Correo del Orinoco International is the only English-language newspaper in Venezuela and the first created during the Chavez administration and the XXIst Century. This is not a lie. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evagolinger1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just "spin" (aka propaganda), and that is not what your edit added ... your edit said it was the "first" (the same claptrap reported by the highly accurate Venezuelanalysis.com). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mz. Golinger, I never commented or took any interest in the content dispute here and I don't have an opinion on the matter. I was only warning you against inappropriate editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

deja vu

the problem I had a few weeks ago surfaces repeatedly. the person uses a changing IP and slaps warning-templates around, bite newcomers from the get go. Now s/he reports another user at ANI, whining about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-IP_bias. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI and User:24.4.248.154

Thanks for your input. Apparently this editor has this thing about wanting to remain an anon-IP, according to the talk page. I suspect it is so that he or she can avoid being disciplined for his or her actions. The sad thing is that this editor has done a fair amount of useful stuff on new pages and the like, but tends to throw warning tags around like a new football referee out to let everyone know he's on the field. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The warnings were improperly placed by the troublesome anon-IP editor, who also refuses to communicate directly about the issue - he or she just throws warning tags around, then goes running off to ANI. I did a strikethrough instead of a complete deletion just to make it obvious what I had done. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about DYK template

Hey Rjanag. I cut and pasted and then modified. I find the dyk formating confusing, to say the least. Did I mess up? Ceoil ^sláinte 08:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try that next time. I was only just discussing mark up with another user yesterday; it beats the hell out of me. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chaucer

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your careful copyedits. You probably put Adam Scriveyn to shame. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I missed out on the renaming of the manuscript words-article (wasn't it a DYK article weeks ago already?), but that was a good move. You started that, right? Well done, it's a much better title. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, someone else renamed the article; I mostly just did little edits with the article here and there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Listen, while I have your ear (and you have your magic powers), can you please have a look at Dogo Argentino? Rohnjones protected it, another editor made some (necessary) edits, but in the process removed that "pp-semi-vandalism" code (by accident, no doubt). I don't know if I can correct that or how I should do that--your help is much appreciated. Signing off, Drmies (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Got it, I think...is this what you needed? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. Could I simply have cut and pasted that? I saw a non-admin do that a week or so ago, and next thing you know black cars pulled up in front of her house (or so I'm told). Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

<--I was hoping to give you a present (by removing a cn-tag and replacing with a cite) but was unable to do so. Instead, I had to settle for this. I noticed there are two different citation formats, and I stuck with the templates I always use--I hope that's OK with you, and the article isn't consistent anyway. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Squall Leonhart

Sorry. It was just a typo mistake.Tintor2 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to check. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Report xboxfanboy vandal

Hi, do you remember last weekend when vandal/xbox fanboy Falcon9x5 came in the Ferrari Challenge (video game) article i was editing, nobody edited it since 2008 when i came up to clean it up, to add infos and then Falcon9x5 popped in the same day and removed my informations from the article starting an edit war (he did it before coming in articles i edit) then reporting me to the administrators noticeboard trying to get a ban on me so he could follow his detestable agenda. now i caught him adding negative and false claims on a playstation 3 title then removing negative but true facts in another article. this editor is known for, shorts, insignificant edits, he mostly removes informations added by other editors using his personal interpretation of WP:GAMECRUSH and following an obvious agenda. i already saw him following my contributions and reverting my edits in articles. basically he promotes the xbox360 games and gives negative view to playstation 3 games which is the rival console. for example in the Final Fantasy XIII article, he first added a 576p native resolution to the playstation 3 version -basically this means the ps3 version does not support HD 720p but a much lower quality SD 576p- here [1]. then an other editor corrected this false claim, adding xbox360 to the 576p resolution, which is a known and sourced fact. hence the ps3 version was 720p and xbox360 was 576p. so Falcon9x5 came back and removed the resolution infos -while it was him who added it in the first place as a negative aspect of the ps3 version- just because the truth was the ps3 version had actually a better quality, ps3 was 720p and xbox was 576p, then he removed the native resolution!! as simple as that, this is blatant vandalism. he does this often but now i caught him the hand in the honey pot, removing content like this is blatant vandalism, he is a vandal and an xbox360 fanboy indeed (admitedly he don't own a ps3 - but he edits ps3 article with negative infos...). (576 w/source; +eg review) - (rm unsourced 576p 360; asia release nn on en wiki; chinese trad release not for lead). thanks for holding an eye on this "editor". Cliché Online (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I cannot make any judgments about editing if you do not provide diffs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
2. According to Falcon9x5's userpage, he works for Sony. So I'm not sure I understand your rationale for assuming he's anti-PlayStation.
3. I have already cautioned you against making erroneous accusations of vandalism. Again, please read What vandalism is not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've looked more closely, I see that, first of all, the edits you're "reporting" happened 4 or 5 days ago, so I don't see why you're suddenly bringing this up now; it is not really appropriate of you to leave harshly-worded "warnings" many days after the edit happened. Secondly, judging by later edits and by the discussion on your talk page, he was not removing content, he was actually adding a source to previously unsourced content; the current version of the article makes it quite clear the the Xbox version is the one with 576p resolution. No vandalism occurred, and I don't swee what you're getting so worked up about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev

Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the image file change. I hadn't realized that we couldn't use them. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:B-Day

Thank you for the reminded, I myself forgot how long I have been here :D--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Assist

Could you please assist with User talk:Alefbe#Alefbe Deletions without discussions from bunch of articles
Thanks Intothefire (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm uninvolved. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kunyu Wanguo Quantu#Sea of Japan naming dispute

Do you consider this section to be even relevant to the main topic? I interpret this as someone trying to spread the heated dispute argument onto another article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving talk pages

When you move a page, like you did at IGN, please make sure you also move the talk page. That's often difficult, because you can't automatically delete a talk page using Special:MovePage when moving a page. I fixed it now; I'm sure you'll be able to do it yourself next time. :) Ucucha 02:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Thanks for the pointer. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful input, at page Talk:No worries. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

fyi

Back in July 2009 you moved Uyghur captives in Guantanamo to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo. You didn't initiate a discussion of this move prior to the move. Your only explanation for your move was in your edit summary, where you asserted the previous title lapsed from WP:NPOV. I assume this was a good faith mistake, but, as I tried to explain at the requested moves page, it is actually the use of the term "detainee" that lapses from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale, and therefore the request seems to have been declined. You are welcome to paste the discussion into the article talk page and continue discussion there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)