User talk:Rjanag

If you leave me a message here, my habit is to post a response at your talk page. If you would prefer that I respond here, just leave a note in your original message and I'll respond to you here. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Incorrect mathematics

Your comment on DYK was proven false. There is 14,000 characters on the current page. The fact that you would put it at such a low number, in addition to your recent actions as of late, is highly incivil and very questionable. I have also received many complaints in my email box about you from people who feel that you are doing a disservice to DYK. Must I proceed to having a topic ban of you from reviewing? Or will you cut this off now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I counted with prosesize.js, the count is accurate, and nothing has been "proven false" unless you take your own word to be the capital-t Truth. I have responded to your comments at T:TDYK.

This morning I tried to leave you a message at your talk page politely saying that I was willing to put this fight behind me and I was hoping we could move on, but you have clearly chosen not to do so. Even though my note at T:TDYK did not at all challenge your hook and did not say it should be rejected (in fact, you can see that I said the hook is fine and may be reviewed), you have instead chosen to continue to pick a fight. Therefore, I humbly ask that you not post at my talk page anymore. If you want to continue fighting or if you ever need to engage in Wikipedia-related communication with me for any reason, you may e-mail me. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neurolinguistics

Do you have a handle on what this article is about? All the references are very technical and I would have to do some major learning to get this right. Do you think the article is actually combining more than one topic? Could you outline what I could be most helpful at doing? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough of a handle to write introductory-level stuff, but I'm not a super-expert yet. I agree that it would be nice to bring in some more accessible references.

As for what you can do...I was mostly just wanting a second pair of eyes to let me know if there are any major concerns that need to be addressed before going to GA (but it will be a while before I take this to GA anyway, so there's no rush)...and also if there are any particular sections that are really confusing, you could point them out. I imagine that the references we get are going to be pretty complicated, even if they're not journal articles, because that's just what the field is like...but my ultimate goal should be to take all that complicated stuff and dilute it into something that a WP reader can get something useful out of.

My main plan for the article right now is more or less as follows:

Add a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot (for example, the question of how information in sentences is processed, and how neuro uses specific brain responses–the ELAN, LAN, N400, and P600, note the redlinks—to piece that apart)
Add a section, if possible, on the applications of neuro to other fields and to real life
Possibly spin the "experimental design" section out into a separate article

That's about it for now. It's hard to go into stuff like the models proposed about how language processing works, because that is really more the domain of psycholinguistics (the way I like to think of it is, people in psycholinguistics propose a model about how the mind processes some language-related thing, then people in neurolinguistics test it...of course, there's a lot of overlap, but the general thing is that a lot of neurolinguistics is just knowing about brain imaging, and figuring out clever ways to see what the brain is doing; they just happen to do it with the goal of attaining linguistic knowledge rather than other stuff). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, butting in rudely, I'd be very happy to work on Neurolinguistics. But it will be at least one week, possibly three before I have any time. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's not going anywhere! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, multinoms save space, so we generally do encourage them for related articles.

Politizer, your description on my talk page sounds fine, but I think if the code is just going to automatically produce credits for multinoms on the assumption they were all produced by the same person or group, it might be an idea to have an automated note to go along with the multinom output reminding updaters to check the validity of the credit strings before promotion. That would ensure that new users and people unfamiliar with the system will not just grab all the credits and paste them, assuming they are correct. Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French sources

I've been looking for someone to translate and verify refs! Would you mind checking out the French books on Leon M'ba and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat and verifying that it's all true? You have no idea how ecstatic I am right now. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush: I just want to have it on the main page by February 17. Best, ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another project for you (copied in part from talk page)

Suntag, I noticed your conversation with Daniel Case, and I just had an idea that seems like it might be up your alley.... I don't know how we would go about actually implementing this or keeping track of these kinds of things, but maybe it would be cool to have a list of DYK articles that go on to make GA or FA. (since the DYK credit template is transcluded in the talk page, the easiest way might be to have a bot that goes through all pages where that is transcluded, and return all pages that also have GA or FA in their {{ArticleHistory}}.) Of course, who knows, maybe such a list would just be embarrassing (what if we find that 95% of DYK articles stagnate and get ignored after their big day?) but if not, it may be fun to think about. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Please revise {{Dyktalk}} with |GA= and |FA= that will populate Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles if =yes. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYKsuggestion format

Hi Politizer, just wondering about the output of your DYKsuggestion template.

I notice for example that for the Zhao Zongru hook, the template is outputting the following:

| creator           = Nlu
| creator2          = 
| creator3          = 
| creator4          = 
| expander          = 
| expander2         = 
| expander3         = 
| nominator         = 
| comment           = 
| image             = 
| credits           = 
*{{DYKmake|Zhao Zongru|Nlu}}

I can't really see the point in all this. Once DYKsuggestion has outputted the credit string, ie *{{DYKmake|Zhao Zongru|Nlu}}, why do we need all the rest? It seems redundant and it takes up a lot of space. Also, we are experiencing increasing problems with loading times for the page, so the less text the better.

One other thing, I've noticed your code outputs this whole DYKsuggestion thing in brackets {{}}. Is there a reason for that? I can't see why they are needed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I will have to read all that through carefully at some stage, because I didn't understand all of it. However, I really don't see why you need to output any of those fields at all, they don't provide any information that isn't in the credit strings, so I can't imagine why Suntag would want to keep them. And given the difficulty in outputting only selected fields, I think you should just dump the lot and be done with it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on this topic, it occurred to me a day or two ago that we don't really need the "expander" fields at all. They have only created confusion, so it might be better if we just had "creator" fields to serve as both creator/expander fields.

IMO, we don't really need to be informed whether the article is new or a x5 expansion, because we have to check that in the article's history page anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last post, I wasn't suggesting dumping the entire template! I simply meant dump all the fields except the credit strings. Sorry if I failed to make my meaning clear. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear what I have in mind, basically what I would like to see is an output something like this (using the above hook as an example):

{{*mp}} ... that the Tang Dynasty official Zhao Zongru served under six emperors — Emperor Dezong, Emperor Shunzong, Emperor Xianzong, Emperor Muzong, Emperor Jingzong, and Emperor Wenzong?

- So basically the hook and credits can be just picked up and pasted into next update with the absolute minimum of cleanup, making for greater ease and less possibility of errors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Update Notice!

Hello Politizer,

I believe you're having a safe and happy holidays.

Here wishing you a happy new years, which is on its way.

Please review the article when you get a chance.

Thanx,

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1964 Gabon sources

How's the source-checking coming along? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Feinstein

Prod tag added to ad for a non-notable person. You indicated concerns before, and the ad remained basically untouched. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at article talk page. Thanks for your message, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times They Are A'Changin' (song)

Hi Politizer, many thanks for DYK response. I knew there was a glitch when I clicked the preview button. Unfortunately I've now wrestled with the page you indicated for over an hour and it still looks like a wiki-mess. I fear my writing skills are ahead of my software expertise. Could you please give a hand and paste:

... that 30 years after Bob Dylan wrote his song "The Times They Are a-Changin'", he licensed it to be used in an advertisement for the auditing and accountancy firm Coopers & Lybrand—performed by Richie Havens?

into the right box. Many thanks for your help :) Mick gold (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! many thanks. (I wish I had mastered the knack...) Mick gold (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLPunsourced template

Hi Politizer. If you have some time, can you revise the BLPunsourced template per Category:Possibly living people. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]