User talk:Rjanag: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 30 January 2011

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.

Your deletion of my page "HARVEY W. BARNHILL"

I added HARVEY W. BARNHILL to the list of PILOTS in ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY, then added a biography page for Barnhill linked from the list of PILOTS. You immediately deleted the bio page, but left his name listed in the list of PILOTS. The reason sighted is that it is an individual without indication of his importance.

I was beginning an extensive effort to add the names & biographies of the Alaska Bush Pilots from the pioneer era 1920 - 1940. I have researched & developed bios on over 100 pioneer Alaska bush pilot who contributed to Alaska aviation during this period. I also was going to add to the list of DEFUNCT AIRLINES in the ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY section.

HARVEY W. BARNHILL was one of the very early bush pilots. He & LINIOUS McGEE founded BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS, which became McGEE AIRWAYS (one of the earliest airlines in Alaska). BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS became McGEE AIRWAYS which sold to STAR AIR SERVICE, which became STAR AIRLINES which with mergers & acquisitions became ALASKA STAR AIRLINES, which became the ALASKA AIRLINES of today. I had planned to add HARVEY W. BARNHILL & LINIOUS McGEE bios, then BARNHILL & McGEE AIRWAYS, then McGEE AIRWAYS, all appropriately linked. This initial set of 4 pages would begin adding factual useful info on Alaska Aviation History not presently covered in Wikipedia.

How do you want me to proceed??

Signed - RoyDickson (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also added some birth & death years to several of the PILOTS in the list that were missing dates. These edits were not deleted.

The article was deleted because it gave no indication of why this person is notable; it basically just said that he did his job, and doesn't say why he was significant. Wikipedia has a strict notability guideline for biographies, which you should skim before you try to write a new article. I have the ability to restore your Harvey Barnhill article, but not without evidence of why this individual meets the notability guidelines.

Also, as a side note: the article was full of grammar and style errors, to the point that it was almost unreadable. Please proofread your work before you add it to Wikipedia. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Chow Green Hornet edits

Actually, having this information on the Wiki IS relevant, because many people are unaware that he is not involved with Green Hornet any longer, and a Wiki page is supposed to be INFORMATIVE AND FACTUAL. Glossing over this bit of history is cleansing his professional history and providing a disservice to fans/readers by omission of relevant history.

In fact, when I have the time I will add a paragraph talking about this sad chapter for Stephen Chow fans. Hollywood kicked Mr. Chow in the teeth. The wiki should document professional successes AND professional failures. It is his LIFE, after all.

75.140.110.87 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing my article

Every time I post my bio article on Harvey W. Barnhill - you (or someone else) deletes it. I have tried to explain to you that I am attempting to add bio information on the Alaska Bush Pilots of the pioneer 1920 -1940 era, as well as history articles on the airlines in Alaska during this period, all of which are now defunct. These pilots & airlines contributed much to the development of Alaska before statehood as supported by the Alaska Centennial Commission, The Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum, University of Alaska Press / Film Archives, etc. As far as I can tell you don't even give me an explanation other than your original cryptic criticism. I have rewritten the article & reposted it twice but it keeps disappearing. Besides the criticism do you have any constructive suggestions on how to accomplish this objective, or should I just quit wasting a considerable amount of time trying to develop the understanding to contribute? Plz do me the honor of replying. RoyDickson (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are just terrible

You are terrible!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

ChapmanHB (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of the article on the 12th Lord Belhaven and Stenton was an outrage. Do the right thing and restore it.--ChapmanHB (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)ChapmanHB[reply]

I have restored it because it looks like the original tagging was in error. In the future, though, when making a request like this, please explain why you think the page should be restored, rather than just claiming it is an "outrage". You were lucky enough that I bothered to look into this request; in the future if you are this polite with other administrators, they are likely to just ignore you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Comment

I'd like to request your comment regarding moving Bing (search engine) to Bing at Talk:Bing#Requested_move. Thanks! Smallman12q (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting a comment, or do you wish to refrain from leaving a remark?Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, now to find what primary topic means=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a response (a chart which shows how many page views Bing got before and after the search engine) and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_is_defines_a_topic_as_being_the_.22Primary_Topic.22 to better determine what makes up a primary topic. I am always welcome to your remarks. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeer photo rebound

Someone's trying to (once again) add the photo controversy story into the Rebiya Kadeer article and actually started a talkpage-string. Maybe you could comment as well. I know we greed to exclude it, but I don't completely recall the rationale. thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

déjà vu?

isn't chinahistorian our "special friend" from last month? seems like he dug up the Kadeer children's letter... Seb az86556 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same guy. I just saw his edits and reverted them, for now he's moved on to Mao Zedong. Will try to stay near the computer for the meantime to see whether he's actually run away, or is just planning on emerging with more cries of censorship. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I think you were too lenient -- the letter-story has to be kept out. Once someone's children are being dragged into the deal, WP:BLP is definitely breached, doesn't matter what source it is. So I completely X-ed it. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call; I think you were right to remove it. I was hurrying and not thinking carefully about what it said, and plus I figure the less heavy-handed I am with ChinaHistorian the less likely he is to start being a problem again, so I was hesitant to do a full-out revert...but I agree that the stuff doesn't belong there yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps user box

Can you look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#GA_Sweeps_review_userbox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leehom move

Thanks, I'll be sure to check those, as soon as I finish editing the spelling within the article. SilkRoadEdge (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Wikipedia:Double redirects and followed the method outlined there to search on Pages that link to "Leehom Wang" for possible double redirects. If I followed directions correctly, it looks like you took care of all of the double redirects. Thanks again for all your help. SilkRoadEdge (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Singer

Is it possible to unfreeze Fred Singer and keep discussion of the disputed section in the Fred Singer talk page (as has been tried repeatedly in good faith by GoRight and others, including myself) till the disputed section is resolved without requiring a freezing of the whole article?--there is a certain aspect of "tag teaming" which I think underlies the current reverting difficulties. The reverts are often accompanied by snide remarks/no or perfunctory justification and the talk page gets much worse. An example: "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years ~~is a politically motivated crock of shit~~...." [strikethrough was in original and was meant as a sarcastic insult--see other similar insults directed at GoRight and others in the same section], so I think GoRight is getting a bad rap here--he has honestly been trying to add balance (whether I/others agree with him or not) and trying to get civil discussions going without much success. The current issue is how to deal with "sourced" ad hominem labels in a held-to-a-higher-standard Biography of living persons. I'm not sure reverts attempting ensure consensus gathering should be viewed as being of the same form as those trying to avoid it, either.

Btw, the version frozen in place was the one reverted to by the editor holding the "Singer['s]...work during the last 30 years ~~is a politically motivated crock of shit~~...." animus. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are leaving this message with me; I am not the person who protected the article (User:Cbrown1023 is) and I have been defending User:GoRight anyway.

As for your question, I believe protecting the article was an appropriate move on Cbrown's part and I do not feel comfortable unfreezing it at the moment. The edit warring between you and Stephan Schulz so soon after the previous protection was removed is shameful, on both parts, and no admin will unfreeze the article until they are confident that you guys and other editors will stop revert warring over this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been defending User:GoRight anyway." - I do appreciate your handling of the matter, and I do recognize that you could easily have decided to fall on the opposite side of the fence as it was. I have no problems at all with the constraints you have articulated and I don't intend to abuse your trust in this matter. Regarding the second page protection by Cbrown1023 under the circumstances it would probably be best to let that one stick, IMHO. Plenty can be discussed on talk anyway and its not like the topics being discussed will determine the state of the free world (at least any time soon!). Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that this second page protection is appropriate. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know why you are leaving this message with me;" You had just been active in the administrative effort to achieve appropriate discourse. I also had not noted that full protection did allow eventual changes as approved by the admin & that someone later pointed out to me. I do not disagree that the freeze is appropriate--that was absolutely not my point . It just seemed to be an awfully blunt instrument for an effort to take a single, ad hominem remark (however weakly worded) out of the article while consensus was being sought in talk (which was very clearly requested in my two edits on this very specific ad hom--BLP has specific related exceptions to the 3rr rule--I am unclear as to why adhering to those guidelines constitutes "shameful" behavior, but that's my problem.). The Singer article is in a perpetual state of stasis for the very reason that all such efforts to improve neutrality are immediately reverted by a cadre of what I would call "true believers." I was trying to (unshamefully) move it to where Wikipedia states it belongs. If it is a hopeless cause, it is a hopeless cause.

"I have been defending User:GoRight anyway." I also left a message with the admin who protected the page, but haven't received a response, and my inclusion of the GoRight material was part of the discussion on that admin's page--I should have removed it when copying my concerns here as I believe it confused the issue: I wasn't implying any criticism of you. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

Thanks a lot for your wishes. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY

I have been trying to add a lot of important info on early Alaska aviation history. I have a lot of well researched info on the pioneer bush pilots of the 1920 - 1940 era, as well as info on the many airlines formed during this period, that through many mergers, ended up being Alaska Airlines and a part of Delta Airlines. I added some birth & death dates to your existing list of pilots, and added the names of about 90 additional bush pilots of the 1920 - 1940 era. These are all notable pioneers who contributed to the development of Alaska which was and continues to be so dependent on aviation. All of these pilots were honored by the ALASKA CENTENNIAL COMMISSION in 1967. YOU DELETED ALL MY ADDITIONS WITHOUT COMMENT! YOU EVEN DELETED SEVERAL OF THE PILOTS IN YOUR ORIGINAL LIST! You changed the "PILOT" heading to "NOTABLE PILOTS." You even deleted a pilot from the original list who was also a Territorial Senator from Alaska and one of the authors and signers of the Alaska State Constitution! YOU HAVE ALSO DELETED MOST OF THE ARTICLES I HAVE SUBMITTED EITHER WITHOUT COMMENT OR WITH SOME RUDE COMMENTS indicating that IN YOUR JUDGMENT these people or airlines were not NOTABLE enough! Perhaps the Alaska Centennial Commission and the Alaska Historians are much better judges of who & what is notable than you are! Wikipedia does not have much information on this important subject of Alaska Aviation History. For example, the article on ALASKA AIRLINES is a very short stub and the flag ASKS for contributions of more information. I am trying to add information on the 14 airlines that became Alaska Airlines and the 100 or so pioneer bush pilots who started it all. IS THERE SOMEONE AT WIKIPEDIA I CAN WORK WITH that is a lot MORE HELPFUL and a lot LESS RUDE? PLEASE ADVISE! RoyDickson (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to work things out with you.Smallman12q (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish

No need for email as far as I'm concerned. I'm tired of wikipedia and don't like who I am here. I'm not just switching accounts; I'm gone for good. I think that's reason enough? Arxack (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALASKA AVIATION HISTORY

After your initial (and only) message to me about removing the Barnhill article, I rewrote and resubmitted the article which you removed again without any message that I can locate. So, what is the answer to my question: "Is there someone I can work with that is a LOT MORE HELPFUL and A LOT LESS RUDE?" - answer YES or NO?? RoyDickson (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while we're at it....

while we're at it, I need a legal opinion regarding the Griqualand East-article:

So that country printed its own money in 1867 and burnt/destroyed most of those banknotes shortly after that 'cause they realized the idea was total junk and wouldn't work. Only a handful of those notes remain, and the copyright has definitely expired (1867, US+100, SAfr.+70).

And then there's this guy who takes a picture of one of those rare pieces, posts it on the web, and claims he now has the copyright. Hm?

Is that a legal claim?(e.g. If I Photoshop it, can I use it?)
Or does that mean "this specific photo I took is mine and I own it"?

thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he can claim copyright on that. But I'm not super-experienced with copyright stuff; you might be able to get a more informed answer if you post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions said the same thing. So I uploaded it, and it's in the article. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maths

Hi. Are you seriously of the opinion that 6x9=42 (base 13) requires a citation? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it the fact itself requires a citation; I said I am "seriously" of the opinion that claiming a connection between this fact and Douglas' reason for making 42 is original research. It's synthesis of known facts in attempt to support speculation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it specifically so that it didn't make that connection, but fair enough. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning it there at all implies a connection. Wikipedia articles are not the places for making personal commentaries on what might be; if a source isn't found, this speculation should be removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media articles

Hi Rjanag. I have noticed your work on the Epoch Times and I think your objectivity and editing experience can also be used at other articles that deal with Falun Gong media and PR organizations such as NTDTV, Shen Yun Performing Arts etc. All of these articles desperately need to be checked for POV, with some of the articles being constantly abused by one particular user. Colipon+(T) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user I mentioned above has engaged in serious content and policy violations with Falun Gong related content. He violates WP:OWN and often reverts changes intermittently with dubious reasoning and shows little respect to other peoples' views. He constantly throws out personal attacks and his blanking of content has become very methodical and often turns away good faith editors like OhConfucius and myself. He has been cautioned endlessly on his talk page and has been banned in the past. His abuse is immediately visible if you check his contributions. He needs to be topic-banned (or banned completely) as soon as possible, much like the pro-CCP anti-Uyghur "User:ChinaHistorian" on the Urumqi riots articles. I was wondering if you could help me through this process. Colipon+(T) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally stayed away from FLG articles because it's too much drama for me (other than the Urumqi riots, almost all the articles I work on are ones that only get a few views per day). But I can try to look into this user. From my quick glance now, I don't see grounds for a complete ban, as he appears to make some constructive or uncontroversial edits as well (for example, this) and appears to edit the talkpages more than the articles themselves. If you can supply diffs or specific page histories and dates to show revert warring, OWNership, and personal attacks, that would be useful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page is overflowing with bans and users fed up with his POV-pushing, actually. I will try to search for some diffs too. There are too many. But it's hard to dig up with these FLG articles because no version is ever stable... Colipon+(T) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADilip_rajeev&diff=288338716&oldid=288322046 (Bunch of sockpuppet allegations and attempts at defending himself). Also, his anti-Cult stance at Sathya Sai Baba is notable, as the organization wrote a blog against him detailing his "smears" of the article on Wikipedia. There is also his own website praising Falun Gong - indicating a clear conflict of interest. There's countless other cases of him insulting and attacking other users on talk pages. I just don't have time to dig thru them all. If you need them I'll keep digging though. Colipon+(T) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I back Colipon up. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do in this case would be to open up an RFC/U about the user. His long block log and extensive warnings are, obviously, worrisome, but to be honest in the diffs you give me I don't see anything immediately blockable; while it is obvious that this user has problems, the particular diffs aren't anywhere near ChinaHistorian level, and he looks more like just a user with a bad attitude and a POV but not necessarily a worthless user. For instance:

[1] Probably shouldn't be edit-warring or removing that from discussion, but at least he is claiming a logical (although not necessarily valid or correct) reason for wanting to remove it.
[2] Misinterpreting a style guideline ("Criticism" sections are discouraged, but not 100% banned) and doing it for POV reasons...but this is just bad editing, it's nowhere near as egregious as what some people do
[3] Another problematic edit which probably was motivated by the wrong reasons (trying to whitewash out Li Hongzhi-ism); the original source says "It has a set of writings by the leader that are taken as true beyond the level of truth that you would regard a normal author as having. That is, they're gospel in some sense. That the teacher, the leader, is regarded as being greater and more powerful than normal human beings; that the things that that teacher says are taken as truer and more real and more powerful than anything else, anybody else says, and that there is a well developed, I would call theology, but possibly doctrine, that includes morality, practice and a whole complete world view. So it looks like a religion to me.". Taken by itself this is not necessarily a horrible edit--if you only read the last sentence of that paragraph, rather than the whole thing, you could take it to be saying something like what the editor rephrased it to, although if you read the whole paragraph it's clear that the original version is more accurate. Although of course, as part of a greater trend, I would say this is a legitimate problem edit.
[4] Actually he's not calling NYT a fringe theory, he's saying the supposedly racist part of FLG is a fringe part and doesn't need to be mentioned. This I would call a legitimate content disagreement (even if he's wrong, it's still a content disagreement and not a behavior problem).
[5] Definitely bad writing and overly promotional (he pays lip service to a criticism of the group, in just one sentence, but then 'counters' it in the next sentence, and 95% of the edit is positive anyway), but not blockable in of itself.

Anyway, my reason for discussing all those diffs is not to defend the user or say that I agree with his editing, but to point out that, while he is a problem editor, he hasn't done anything block-able and there's not really anything I myself can do about this. The best thing you guys can do, as far as I know, is file an RFC/U so that more editors can discuss this user's actions and decide what to do. If any action is taken, I imagine it would be to sanction this user against editing FLG articles directly, and have him agree instead to only post suggestions/comments on talk pages (essentially, an FLG-wide topic ban from article editing...I don't see any reason to ban him from talkpage editing, unless you can produce evidence that he is deliberately trolling or otherwise being disruptive). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PILOTS / NOTABLE PILOTS in Alaska Aviation History

In one of your previous replies to my messages, you mentioned the name of the contributor who deleted the PILOTS category and replaced it with NOTABLE PILOTS and eliminated most of what had been listed both before my edits and after my edits. I do not seem to be able to find that contributors ID so I can contact him to discuss this list (in helpful positive ways.) Would you please resend me his contact ID? Thank you in advance. RoyDickson (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standards

I would like to thankyou for your continued participation with me in helping Roy Dickson. I looked at his last edit at Talk:History_of_aviation_in_Alaska#Long_list_of_pilots and he raised the question as to what are the criteria for listing pilots. I've looked at Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability and none list the criteria for listing notable pilots. Could you point me to somewhere it does, or give me some criteria that I can pass on?(I've also started a thread at WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_of_pilots. Thanks. Smallman12q (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want WP:NLIST (notability criterion for lists of people), and WP:ANYBIO (general notability guideline for people). Most notability guides are not relevant because they tend to be about whether something is notable enough for its own article, rather than notable enough to be in a list. For lists, the concern is more with style guidelines than notability per se; the question is whether an article benefits from a giant list of people for whom significance isn't demonstrated (ie, people who have done nothing other than have a career). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've redone Barnhill & McGee Airways, let me know what you think of it.Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurt Locker

Thanks for stepping in and assisting here. I'll agree with most of your comments, it could have been handled better. Inurhead has been, in the past, very difficult to bring to a discussion, any discussion. I'll try to do better. Would you be willing to talk to Inurhead about his accusations he's raising in various places? I don't really like being labeled (even by him) as something I'm not. Yup, I know I've called him a SPA, something that's very, very clear from his history. The sock thing, he's reacting to multiple editors disagreeing with him, not by any evidence. And no, for the record, I'm not a sock of anyone. Again, thanks! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD The Universe of Myron Evans

I put The Universe of Myron Evans on AfD. Since you agreed w/ deletion but deletion was contested, you might be interested in commenting Seb az86556 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Inappropiate AIV reports and warnings

Thanks. See, there is still some policies I haven't read. Chevy Impala 2009 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hangon/notice

Hey - great addition to the hangon template. Not sure if you knew this, but it actually went live already (because it was already in the hangon main template)... it still contained what looked like two links to example.com - one of which I've fixed - the other (purge) I'm still trying to figure out how to fix because the parser wants to add action=edit which is overriding action=purge. I've also requested protection on the page to match the hangon template. Hope I didn't mess you up. Regards 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - figured out the purge template (duh). Still - think the page should probably be protected. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I RPP'd and it's now protected... so people like me can't help out ;) 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, I feel bad...I thought I had fixed the links and protected it, and I guess I did neither! Thanks for catching all of that and taking care of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I was a bit surprised when I saw Example.com on an article I had CSD'd... thought someone was trying to get tricky. But I really do like the feature - big improvement... perhaps just some font color adjustments and it will be perfect (redlink talk page is a bit hard to see against the red background). Thanks. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Just watching your edits there now... wondering, was the {{purge}} template not appropriate, or is the includeonly just a better approach (trying to improve my template coding skills). 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the {{purge}} template was fine (in fact, I never new about that template, and it's rather nice; a lot more concise than the other means), but since I had already used {{fullurl}} for the other instance, I figured it would be more consistent. As for the includeonlys, I'm not sure what happened there....I thought by having subst statements in includeonly it would cause there to be a link when the template is transcluded, without having transcluded {{fullurl}}s within the transcluded template, but when I tried it out in my sandbox it didn't work, so I just removed the subst's. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. JFYI - the way I found {{purge}} was by checking the WP:UAA header... as you can see my first attempt at hardcoding "action=purge" didn't work at all. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good now! 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perspective

So for the first time, I was being really bold on Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital since ohconfucius brought the edit-war over this hospital to my attention... this has gotten out of hand... undue weight to all the allegations when there's already a main article with all the details. Isn't there at least some basic information on staff, year of founding, and such... anything before it jumps into these rumors? Seb az86556 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems ok to me... to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever even looked closely at the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, as I tend to stay away from the FLG articles (too much drama for me, and trying to keep them clean is too Sisyphian). The main issue, I think, is the question of whether the content at Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Sujiatun_case is a full (or even full-er) copy of what used to be at Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital. I think that stuff does at least belong somewhere (perhaps for a selfish reason—it turns out I wrote most of it! although I later forgot about having written it), but perhaps not at the hospital article....although, at the very least, the hospital needs a prominent {{main}} link, or even a hatnote, leading to the other article, since the hospital's main (and, indeed, only) claim to fame is the FLG accusations, and anyone searching for it on WP is probably going to be looking for that.

As for basic information on staff and founding...I don't think anyone has found that yet, other than what is mentioned in the FLG-related investigations. If no such information is found, we might even have to just turn this article into a redirect to the other page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I left a response to your question at User talk:Ohconfucius, detailing a little more about the article's editing history. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did read both. Good. Just wanted to clarify this since you put so much work into it (and I sat here for a few moments contemplating before hitting "save"...).

Also -- I de-linked the word "concentration camp"... people throw that word around like it's nothing. Even some FLG-websites I skimmed say only 7 dead. That's tragic, but ridiculous. Anyone who screams "concentration camp" obviously has no idea about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bosnian rape camps, or even the second Boer war for that matter. Linking there in this case is inappropriate. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose a redirect to Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China as per WP:NPOV/N? I would like to "be bold" and just redirect it now but wanted to consult you first. Colipon+(Talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please just leave it that way. Mayb one day someone can actually find enough to write an actual hospital-article on it. It should still be possible to write something about the building, not the not butchering. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link that was not dead after all

Thank you for your teaching me something new on my talk page and for the revert, I see now that the article loads, which is odd. Perhaps the site was temporarily down. Sorry for the inconvenience. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media articles, again

Some editors continue on insisting that these FLG-related organizations are somehow "independent". Would like your expertise on Sound of hope. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on EpochTimes

Hello, When you have time, could you please leave a feedback on Talk:The_Epoch_Times#First_sentence. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marc87

I have a suspicion that User:Marc87 is an automated program rather than a human editor. His edits seem to follow a formula, he has made no effort to make his user page presentable (most users have a little pride), comments on his talk page are simply reverted rather than responded to, and when he is editing he is editing large numbers of articles at a regular pace (no need to take a potty break?). This seems wrong. Do you know if there is a policy that applies or a place to open an investigation? Readin (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's an automated program, because he sometimes changes things up (for example, there was an article he made bad edits to a couple times, but when I hounded him about it enough he slinked away...if he were an automated program I think he would have kept it up). I think he's just a bad editor with no interest in communicating with people—similar to the now indef-blocked User:Ninthwhen. Anyway, as far as I know there's no way to check things like that, although you could ask someone who has checkuser (but I don't think they can do anything about it, AFAIK all they can do is check IP addresses), or a bot operator (since they might know more about how to recognize accounts that are bots). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're right. He just created a user page. Readin (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, though, that a user can be blocked without being a bot ;). This is pretty much the same thing that happened with Ninthwhen, and I was able to block him forever because he never responded to any discussions. If you see Marc87 make another bad revert, change to naming conventions, or BLP violation, feel free to let me know and I can give him a long block (who knows, maybe that will get him talking). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check this

[[6]] <can't read Chinese, what's this about? Undo? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he removed the traditional character version of the name (新疆维吾尔自治区 and 新疆維吾爾自治區 are both the same thing, only the latter is traditional characters). I was about to revert...but I assume his unstated rationale was that this is PRC so traditional characters are irrelevant. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but if you want to revert and tell him to go to the talk page that would be fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

I don't really care either. Just making sure it didn't completely screw the meaning. Never know... coulda said f*ck china or whatever :P Seb az86556 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

underlining hanzi

How's this?

五个泥

(If you like it, I can make a template so it isn't so onerous to type.) kwami (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Harvesting

I would like to bring to your attention this picture, readily being used as circumstantial "evidence" that Chinese gov't is harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners (this and a few other "evidence" charts have been added to the article, citing Kilgour-Matas). What is your view about a chart like this on a heavily contested article? Colipon+(Talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly OR, unless you're using it to cite someone else having used it to make these claims. (ie, saying "Kilgour-Matas used the following graph to say..." is technically true, though not necessarily good writing.... whereas saying "this graph proves..." is junk.) Anyone who's had an elementary school education knows that going from this chart to "they must be harvesting organs!" is a huge jump in logic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter)

An FYI (since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter) as re-userfy, I've tagged User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter) for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. My rationale is at User talk:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter). I hope you agree with my reasoning. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why his talkpage needs to be deleted, as it's a record of discussions that have been had (and, more importantly, a record of my laundry list of reasons why a Sarey Savy article is never going to happen) and doesn't have any identifying personal information AFAIK. I'll have to look into his userpage more closely. As for his subpage, I have no problem with deleting it but I probably shouldn't be the one to do it; I would recommend MfDing it.

On a side note, I am just about to block the user indefinitely. He's created another junk article about an unreleased and NN single, and clearly is not interested in understanding how WP works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad; I thought you had tagged his main talkpage, not the talkpage of his subpage. Anyway, I would still say MfD is better, given that it's not 100% certain he is the article subject (although he probably is). I am certain the MfD would result in delete anyway, but at least we'd be following the correct procedures. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting those other pages. I have created an MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter). Will you please add an MfD tag to User:OMGILOVEPEAS/Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter); I can't edit the page because it is fully-protected. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I meant to move-protect it, not fully-protect it; fixed now. I've also added the MfD tag. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)

^_^ Thanks. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Pericles of Athens, award Rjanag with this Barnstar of Diligence for extraordinary contributions made to Chinese classifier, which is a Good and soon-to-be Featured article. Well done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

So what are the chances of two people editing the same article at the same time like that then? I'll leave you to it - if you want to take anything from my version please do so, and I'll take a look at yours later on. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I was thinking the same thing! Sorry about the ec; I'll take a look at your version and see if there are any major differences in our organizations. Either way is probably fine, though; any structure at all is better than the incomprehensible mish-mash that was there before... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz has given you half a biscuit! May Mr. Moult bring you fair winds, your lenor always be discounted, your gargoyles never bear any resemblence to a comedian from Faversham, and your windows be free of condensation.

Spread the goodness of HMHB by adding {{subst:HB}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Or don't.

Yes, I really am sad enough to download the pic, crop it, upload it, make a template, etc. Your work on restructuring my feeble article was sublime. Cheers, Chzz ► 07:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

classifier

Have you seen my comment on the talk page? GeometryGirl (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FG repository

I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:(it's here: User:Ohconfucius/FG repository‎ Seb az86556 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

?

rv good faith -- this makes it somewhat suggest that these languages got CL from Chinese, whereas it's actually ambiguous. "close to" refers to both geographically and typologically

A lot of East Asian languages have, indeed, borrowed/influenced from Chinese language. I don't see why it should not read "borrowed" or "influenced by". "Close to"? The only languages that borrowed from Chinese ARE located in Asia, which IS CLOSE to PRC. Explain? I feel like you're making quite an unnecessary edit, when I was clearly asked to copyedit this article (see my talk page). ★Dasani★ 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if it seems like I was disregarding your edit, that was not my intention. My point was just that, since this paragraph is specifically about doubts over whether the classifier system was borrowed from Chinese or borrowed into Chinese, it would be best to use the most neutral language possible; while it is true that many languages have been influenced Chinese (just as it is true that Chinese has been influenced by other languages), that's not the main point here, and using languages like that can predispose the reader towards one view or another (i.e., "oh, well if these languages were shaped by Chinese, then of course it makes sense to assume they got their classifier systems from it!). The source I am quoting, if I remember correctly, just lists a bunch of languages (such as Thai, Burmese, and others) that have similar classifier systems, so I was rewording a bit. Of course, you are correct that there is a well-known linguistic concept of a sinosphere (languages that have used Chinese characters in the past, or still do, and have been influenced by Chinese throughout history), but the point here is just that a bunch of languages have similar systems and no one is quite sure who had it first and who borrowed it.

As for copyediting, personally I don't think much more copyediting is necessary (it has already been through GAN, PR, one FAC, several other copyedits, and the most recent one by GeometryGirl—it was her, not me, who left the message at your talkpage), but if you are interested in the article you are welcome to contribute. I am not really intending to start a fight over this sentence, I would much rather have a discussion about it. Anyway, I'm just saying, you don't need to stress out about rushing to copyedit since it's not an urgent need (there are probably other articles that need your attention more) but also you shouldn't feel unwelcome to edit; it's just up to you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation accepted; no offense taken. Well, these days I don't touch Wikipedia much anymore, I actually put up the "RETIRED" sign on my profile. I just wanted to see if there was anything that could really be done, but it seems like you've both already brought this article up through a long haul.

Yes, I was aware that it was GG who left me the notification, which is why I've clearly stated "was left a message" — not necessarily implying it was you who left the request.

Anyway, good luck with the article. ★Dasani★ 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiBirthday

Thanks! :) --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New version of "Infobox Korean name" template

Need your output at Template talk:Infobox Korean name#Sizing in fonts and cells. Don't you think that the font size is becoming ridiculous? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese and other issues

There is an on-going article name dispute for the Taiwanese language here. There is also an on-going discussion at Talk:Wenzhou Chinese. Your help would be more than appreciated as there seems to be deadlock. Colipon+(Talk) 23:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressive power of natural language

This article is up for deletion and I thought you migth be interested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out credits at T:TDYK

I was thinking about the page load issue a little bit, and I hit on something that could speed things up. Right now the credits are in an invisible div. This means that the Wikipedia servers, and your browser, render the credits, but make them invisible (try looking at the page source). If we comment out the credits, it does not act like a transcluded template, but some random text lying around. This would effectively cut the number of transcluded templates in half (we still have {{*mp}}s) and might make a dent in the speed issue some people are seeing. Shubinator (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original plan for the template, but I could never get it working; the template would always treat  as commented-out parts of the template itself, rather than text to be inserted after the subst. I tried with includeonlys and stuff and never got it working, which is why I ultimately changed it to invisible divs. Another option would be to display the credits as nowiki text, which would show up in the regular page (not the edit window) but not load as transcluded templates...but that would be very cluttery. Anyway, feel free to try things out (copy the text of Template:NewDYKnomination into User:Rjanag/NewDYKnom dev or another sandbox) and see if you can get the commenting-out working. I don't have time to do any template work right now but I might be able to try in a week or two. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the nowiki might work too. I'll try fiddling around later today. Shubinator (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Change to template, sandbox test. The random includeonly's break up the comment-out syntax on the template itself, so it doesn't act as a comment. But when the template gets substituted, the includeonly's go away, and what's left is comment-out syntax. Same strategy as meta:Help:Substitution#Includeonly. Shubinator (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; I've changed it here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now we wait and see ... Shubinator (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12th Lord Belhaven and Stenton 2 August 2009

Point taken that I could have been a little more restrained in expressing my outrage at being accused of copyright infringement. Thank you for promptly restoring the article, as requested. ChapmanHB (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ChapmanHB[reply]

hi there! :)

Bluefish35 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}}!

Haha, wow. I feel so cool! :D Enjoy your cookie! This is so incredibly pointless. --=BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea orthographic projection

I don't see how I'm the one being accused of "edit warring" when I'm the ONLY one offering to discuss this issue in order to reach a consensus. I've started a discussion on the talk page, and provided reasons for my edits, yet no one has participated in the talk page, and no reasons have been provided for the undoing of my edits, including (as of this edit) by you.

I will continue to patiently wait until someone provides a reason to the contrary. Until then, I will continue to promote a maintenace of the original. Thank you, :) Sourside21 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you accused me of being an "edit warrior", and that I was not interested in discussion of this issue. Quite to the contrary, to this date, I have been the only one discussing this issue on the talk page. I will kindly link you to a discussion about this issue on said talk page. Please participate there. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection

Sourside21 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]