User talk:Rjanag

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.

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

Rajasaurus

Hi! Rjanag,

May I request you to please revisit the above article to review the tag, since another expert on the subject has edited it?--Nvvchar (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nvvchar, sorry it's taken me so long to get back. Anyway, it would probably be better to ask J. Spencer about this, since he's the one who did the rewriting and he's more familiar with the content. I'm sure that if he went through it it's probably all fine now, but I'd feel more comfortable letting him remove the tag (since he knows what the state of the article is, whereas all I can do right now is assume—and I'd rather not go through one sentence at a time, as JSpencer probably already has). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I took up the matter with User J. Spencer and he has done the needdful. Please the discussion page of the article.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking in Job hunting

See this edit that I have removed over a 100 (!) links. There is no justification at all for restoring the {{Overlinked}} template. If there are a few links that in your opinion should have been removed, which I have missed or deemed usefull, just go ahead. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Talk:Job_hunting.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your edit was a major improvement and a good start towards cleanup, but the article is still massively overlinked. Just from glancing at one section, linkïng words like "language" and "interest" does nothing for the reader, no one has any reason or need to follow a link like that. This problem still is rife throughout the article, and I have no personal interest in going through the article with a fine-toothed comb (plus I´m technically on a wikibreak right now) so the tag should remain until someone has really fixed the issue. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with you about the appropriateness of these few links. But the point is another: overlinked is not for a few controversial links, it's for massive overlinking. That's why I said, go ahead and remove them. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That´s my point; those aren´t the only two bad links I found, they´re just a couple random ones I grabbed and chose as examples of a greater problem in the article. There are links everywhere, for utterly mundane terms. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In another article linking "emplyment} e.g. would be superfluous, but in an article about job hunting that is a relevant link. Anyway. After I removed over a 100 links and link-density is down to normal levels with all ridiculous links removed, {{Overlinked}} is out of place. I'd appreciate it if you could take fiveminutes (which is all it would take) and take care of whatever you see. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It´s not just a few links, it´s tons, almost all superfluous. You may have removed over 100 links, but there are still hundreds more that are crap. It´s not necessarily my job to clean up an article like this; like any editor, I have the right to point out an obvious problem I see (by tagging it) and not bother to fix it because I´m busy or not interested. Since you have removed the tag again, I´m not going to restore it because I´m not interested in getting into an edit war, and it´s a moot point regardless because soon the article is going to be reverted to the version before Chuck Marean touched it, so this will all be meaningless anyway. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fortune cookie FYI

Since you recently edited Fortune cookie, I want to make you aware of some side discussion that's begun on my talk page here. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK error on Main Page

Ron Garretson hook, the fine should be $25,000 instead of ,000. It's a bot bug. Shubinator (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete request

The bot's hitting some bumps because of the vandalism and background noise on DYK before it was protected in 2005. Two files, File:Mtvernon1.jpg and File:Mount vernon stamp.JPG, were on DYK, so the bot tagged them. Problem is, they weren't part of a legitimate DYK (1, 2). Could you delete the two pages? Shubinator (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A third: File:Monalisa.jpg (diff). Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm...looks pretty straightforward, but I'm not sure about images and how the whole mirroring Commons stuff works...maybe it would be better to run this by an admin who's familiar with images and Commons. Jappalang and Howcheng both know about that stuff, I think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it tomorrow. I'm turning in for the night. Thanks anyways. Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you have returned. Hopefully the break wasn't too stressful. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was the opposite of stressful! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Order of the Stick

"If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page..." (emhphasis mine) I believe it meets the Good article criteria. If you don't feel free to fail the nomination. Powers ^T 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugbear

This has nothing to do with the other thing. =) This closure seems to be in violation of policy; if you merged content, you should keep a redirect with the edit history for attribution purposes, right? Powers ^T 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a need to keep a redirect since nothing else links to that page and it's not a likely search term (if someone wants to search for "bugbears in popular culture", they can find the main "bugbear" article easily enough). If attribution is an issue, the edit history of Bugbears in popular culture is still visible to admins. I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues, so if someone else says the edit history needs to be visible to everyone then they can restore the 11 edits and redirect it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to review this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need an admin to restore a merged article. Also, if you're not familiar with the GFDL issues, you may want to reconsider whether you should be deleting or merging articles as you can make a real mess.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Rjanag. I took your last clause "then they can restore the 11 edits and redirect it," to be a declaration that you would not do so. My apologies. Powers ^T 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was an honest misunderstanding. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chanteuse

Thanks for contacting me about your edit, redirecting Chanteuse to its Wiktionary entry. In retrospect, that would’ve been a much simpler solution that requesting it for deletion, and it makes more sense as well! Thank you for your contribution.  ARTICHOKE-BOY  (Talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) and thanks for the reminder on the editing summaries. I try, but then forget. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Black Rock Congregational Church

The bulk of primary historical information available comes from the church's own archival historical record. Why is this unacceptable to use as a source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crixxx (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Church's historical archives would be considered a primary source. The page I linked to gives information on how to use certain primary sources. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Theories about authorship: voynich's theory of ownership

dude it looks reliable to me. Besides couldnt we have discussed it on the talk page first? The Isiah (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss it now. The best thing to do would probably be for you to leave a message at the reliable sources noticeboard. Just explain that you used that source in an article but another editor questioned its reliability, so you'd like another opinion about it (and give a link to the site). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:DYK

Ah, I was afraid of that. Thank you for letting me know. The Flash ^{talk} 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK template

Thanks for the tip, but I actually the example listed at the top, which caused confusion with "Example.png" (especially since some templates require the omission of File:/Image:. --Bobak (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So no reply? Or are you too busy dragging me through ANI? ;-) --Bobak (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We must be talking about two different things, because if you had used the template it would have been impossible to get the formatting error that happened (the template automatically inserts "File:"). It's not a big deal either way. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, I wouldn't have had to "drag you through ANI", as you call it, if you had talked to me when I asked. The long response you left at ANI, that would have been nice to see on your talkpage as well. It's disappointing to see that you don't "respect" (your words) other editors until they are pressuring you at ANI. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:warning vandals

Sorry about rushing to conclusions. I tend to crack down very hard on what I view as unproductive vandalism-only accounts, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Did you know there's a whole field of inactive, unused accounts whose only purpose is to abuse a userpage to promote vandalism that would normally be reverted in articles? just a little insignificant 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense... Okay, sounds good! I'll follow Wikipedia policy for the good of Wikipedia. (Wow, I can't believe I'm even saying this. In what crazy situation...) :) just a little insignificant 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa language FA review

Hi, I have nominated Ottawa language for Featured Article on June 5th, at Ottawa language. So far there has been very little feedback, and I have the impression that language-related articles don't fare all that well at FA. I think the content is of high quality and it meets the FA criteria, but one of the reviewers has indicated it needs copyediting. I appreciated your work for the Good Article review - would you be willing to take a run through and either copyedit or make suggestions? Or suggest someone else who would be willing/able to copyedit? Thanks. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look within the next 2-3 days. I think you're right that language-related articles often don't get a lot of attention; I think people are intimidated by them. But also be patient; I remember when I had Street newspaper at FAC a couple months ago it was about 2 weeks before I started getting a lot of comments, I think they're always backlogged. (That being said, it is still good to seek out comments, because sometimes articles get failed just for not getting commented on enough, even if there are no "oppose"s.) From what I remember, the article is very well-researched and is an excellent resource on Ottawa, so I don't anticipate having any problems supporting it once I've done a second read-through to check for copyediting issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be very helpful. Jomeara421 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Rjanag, Hello, I ask for your help. Yesterday, some new editor edited Joseon Dynasty but inserted this, "Korea was client state according to Japan, China, and some Western view" in the first sentence of the intro. Chinese scholars and some Westerns think both Korea and Japan were vassal states of China. However, the concept differs from Western's feudal concept. It is for better trades. Japan was also a vassal state of China until Ming Dynasty, and Korea had considered Japan a much inferior state filled with pirates and savages such as Wae or Wako but, are the notion mentioned in the intro? I think the new editor grossly violates Npov, and UNDUE. So I want you to watch the article, because many Chinese and Japanese editors disrupt the article in order to add their Chinese-centered view and Japanese WW2-era delusion. If more administrators keep watching the article, socks/ povpushers will be decreased. please help me. --Historiographer (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will put the article on my watchlist and keep an eye out for socks, but I do not have great knowledge of these historical issues so I can't take much of a stand in this current dispute; I will only be able to deal with much more obvious vandalism/POV-pushing/socking, etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeph Jacques

The protection was based on what seemed to be a long history of ip vandalism, but in my opinion it was borderline as to whether the long term blp issues merited the semi protection or not, so I leaned on the side of caution due to it being a blp. So long as your happy that the page is watched enough not to result in any damage then im happy with your call to unprotect. :-) Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture of South Korea

I changed it cause the picture of the miracle on the Han river does not mean anything but it just looks like a chart. And, the picture I put was not just a pretty picture. They were symbols of South Korea and the miracle on the Han river. Han river of course and 63 building, Banpo bridge are iconic landmarks. And why do you talk to me as if you are in dominant situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamberikore (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What the...? Don't you see the picture you wanted to put?

I don't really understand what you want from me. But, I don't think I need to discuss about this if I replaced your favorite picture of the miracle on the Han river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamberikore (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring comment for Joseph.nobles

This issue is being acted on now. I figured I was posting it in the wrong way (and in the wrong place!), so feel free to delete my report about User:James von Brunn. :D --Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh's wife

Thanks for all your support with Tang Tuyet Minh, although I will still be surprised if it is accepted for DYK. Kauffner (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Middling standing

Rjanag,

Per this edit, no worries on your comment on my standing! I normally sit to edit wp anyway...

Also, can you give a simple pronunciation for your name? I can't read/understand IPA so need baby-speak. Or you can continue to be thought of as R-janag! Bigger digger (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the message! I have been seeing you around DYK more and more lately, so I look forward to continuing to work with you. And yes, editing WP from a sitting position is definitely the safest way to do it, and we always need to keep safety first...

As for Rjanag...the R sounds more or less silent (the word is Northern Monguor, but etymologically it comes from Tibetan, which has a lot of these word-initial "r"s that are not really an English [r]) and the rest is pronounced more or less like it looks, "janag" or "zhanag". Technically [ʨ] is palatal sound (the blade of your tongue sits close to, and pretty much parallel to, the top of your mouth) and ɢ is uvular (like an english [g], but the back of your tongue touches your uvula instead of your soft palate, so it's just a bit further back) but it's not much of a difference. (Some languages have contrast between [ɢ] and [g], but as an English speaker I can't even hear the difference, they all sound the same to me.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rudely added wikilinks so I can understand a bit more. I think "janag" might be the way forward here..! Thanks, I look forward to working with you on DYK and maybe elsewhere along the way. Bigger digger (talk)

Suman Ranganath

Seriously i know her and her family. please remove the dubious tag. one of her official representative requested me to move the page to "Suman Ranganath". i moved the page on march, see [1]. her official website is http://sumanranganath.com/ (now defunct, it is expired on may). "Ranganathan" is a name credited in her tamil films (because Ranganathan is surname which most commonly used by tamils.) see this timesofindia source which mention her name as "Suman Ranganath" which is cleary not a dubious name. Mugur Chandra (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about OTRS system, i will soon contact her family on this issue. i will request her to give a press statement. now she is very busy in films. Mugur Chandra (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

One last request, modify the lead sentence to "Suman Ranganath" or "Suman Ranganathan" ... and remove the dubious tag. Mugur Chandra (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As for OTRS, you can find instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). If you know her family, you can direct them to that page for instructions how to send an official e-mail telling us which name to use.

I can modify the lead sentence to have both, but I can't remove the tag just yet. To be honest, the tag should say "disputed" instead of "dubious" (because "dubious" makes it look like I'm casting a judgment on it, but I'm just trying to mark that the article is under dispute) and I am working right now on getting it changed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for late reply, i was reading the instructions about OTRS system. but i need some time, currently i am busy due to my hectic work schedules, i will be free only after this month. i need to visit her place (she is in Bangalore) just to contact her. but i won't give up in this issue, this is for sure. i will meet her on July first week. Mugur Chandra (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

David Straitjacket - Tourettes

Hi

The edits I made were entirely factual. What sort of verification do you need?90.198.254.189 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just found this he is on record. http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18674 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe you have categories for vegans? I think it would be worth adding him to these to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nut Island effect

Is there a method of putting a DYK nom on hold? This is my first attempt, I can see that you have many questions, some of which I have failed to answer in my second response. I can answer them but it threatens to consume more space than may be normal on the DYK talk, so let me know how you want to proceed and I will be accommodating. Sswonk (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. We can use Talk:Nut Island effect if it's easier; I will try to check your response at the DYK nom soon, I'm just stuck in the middle of a big edit right now so I'm a bit distracted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:38, 12 June

2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument

When you have time, please go to commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg have a look, you will find out how silly people can be, can't even tell the difference between Black and Blue Arilang ^talk 01:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't cry

I think this is right. right?

Oh come on, was that really vandalizing? I was merely adding flavor to an argument. Ya know how you try to make a point, but you want to drive it home, so you say something like "cry me a river." See? No need to be a bully about it. Don't cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.145.220 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not "Self-Published"

Rjanag: I've returned my link to the article on the Voynich Manuscript (with slight shortening of description):

• Voynich New Atlantis Theory The Voynich manuscript and The New Atlantis.

For one thing, my optical theory (proposing that the some of the Voynich cylinders are optical devices, such as microscopes) is not "self-published". My theory first appeared in Renaissance Magazine (Issue #53, March 2007). The website is an addendum to that, including further research and implications on the subject.

In addition, my theory appears in two other published books, the Claudio Foti book, "Codice Voynich", and "Fiona: Mysteries & Curiousities of Literary Fraud & Folly", Volume I, edited by W.J. Elvin (ISBN 978-1440461552). By contrast, many of the links which are left (and which I think should be left, I am not arguing against their being there) are references to self-published books, and stand-alone websites. One of the major books on the subject, a very valuable resource, with a very controversial theory, is completely self-published at the author's expense. This is common in this particular field, I only point it out, again, because mine is one of the few theories in the last few years which is not self-published.

As for "pseudo-science", well by that standard, "we" all are. Experts in the fields of botany, astronomy, history, and on and on, all disagree with one another. They cite countless arguments, each backed up by "solid science", which absolutely shoot down the other theories. They cannot all be correct, they cannot all be correct science. The trouble is, we do not know which "science" to trust, or which known sciences or histories do apply to the Voynich problem. I do not, they do not. But the basis of my theory are sound, whether or not it turns out they apply in this case. The history of optics in the early 17th century, for one thing. The fascination with ancient mysterious cipher works, hermetic works, the Utopian societies, are all well established in the time frame I propose, by the people I propose influenced it. And there are precedents and co-incidents to my theory, in the time I propose. My theory is completely based on known sciences and histories, nothing had to be imagined or invented, except, as for everyone else's theory, the Voynich's possible place in it.

Don't be fooled by the momentum of the status-quo of Voynich research. It has been wrong twice longer than I have been alive... the answer has been sought in this traditional research, and the purveyors of these traditional views have not come one inch closer to any hope of an answer. The field needs other input, mine and others, to open new areas of possibilities. Yes, as long as they are based on what is known... and what is scientific and reasonable. Remember, all we know is that it is on vellum, and appeared to history about 1622. Everything else, and everyone else, is in the same boat as I am.

Anyway, I've looked carefully over the WP:EL rules since Dreamguy removed my link a few weeks ago, and I feel that my link meets all the criteria. If you have a specific point on that list you feel I do not meet, we can argue it in the appropriate forum... I'm sorry I do not know all the procedures, this whole area of wikipedia is somewhat unfamiliar to me... but we can both make our case before the appropriate authorities, if you still disagree. If not, please leave the link there. I not only feel it strictly follows the rules, it actually follows them better than most of the links remaining (which nonetheless, should remain). Thanks for your time, Rich SantaColoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.4.192 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. I see here you have read WP:EL but don't understand why you think your personal website is an exception. It may well be that some of the other links should be removed, there certainly appear to be too many. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And I just looked into the publications you mention. The first is self-published, the second, where I've read the paragraph referring to your ideas, is also self-published. I agree the blog at [2] is fascinating, but everything you've written, or rather told us about, appears to be either your website or self-published books. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, 173.2.4.192, I recommend that you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a vehicle for promoting your own ideas or theories. If your theory is really notable enough, someone else will know about it and add it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Thanks for restoring the article. But please check the the AFD you wrote, the information is completely wrong. --Morning (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong about it? Please be more specific. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I did not say the article should go to AfD. --Morning (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't expect us all to be mind-readers. "Thanks" is not exactly a specific request. And regardless of whether or not you say the article should go to AfD, I say it should go to AfD. The rest will be sorted out in the discussion. Your time might be better spent going there and stating your case, rather than hanging around here finding fault with the way I listed it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You deleted my draft at my request, but little did I know that I need the page history, can you please get them? Gsmgm (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored all 28 revisions of the article; when you're done and want to delete it again, you can just do it the same way you did before (by tagging it with {{db-author}}). Let me know if there's anything else you need! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you restored it with the db-author template, and someone else redeleted it, can you please re-restore it without the csd-template? Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done it for you, Rjanag. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aphasiology

Hi

you added a commnet in Jan 2009 about cleaning up the Aphasiology article. If you could do that in the very near future I may help me sort a few issues with regard the dyslexia project. There are two existing articles which seem to overlap dyslexia and aphsia Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and Alexia without agraphia. I have very little knowledge of Aphasia but we seem to have adopted these two articlew into the dyslexia project, so could you help define how Aphasia contrbutes to these types of Dyslexia

dolfrog (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Before I got much chance to work on aphasia I got busy with User:Rjanag/To do list, so I'll have to check back on it. Off the top of my head, all I know is that alexia (acquired dyslexia) has been a topic of some aphasia studies because it has implications for single-route vs. dual-route models of lexical processing. Alexia without agraphia is, as far as I know, not discussed a whole lot in the field (at least, it's not a "hot topic"). In general, though, I think the connection to aphasiology is pretty clear for both of these conditions—they each appear to result from brain damage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re NOTPLOT

Hi, Rjanag, strictly speaking you're right, the "disputed" tag is for articles. If you really dislike my use of the "disputed" tag I can create and apply a tag that says "the validity of this section of the guideline / policy is disputed" - i.e. a section-level version of the "disputed policy / guideline" tag. The points is that "under discussion" is misleadingly bland, since: the majority of current contributors disagree with the current wording's deletionist implications; reasonable evidence has been presented that NOTPLOT is not a legitimate guideline because it never gained any sort of consensus. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a "disputed selection of policy / guideline" tag would be used if it were placed in appropriate categories, and, more importantly, in the docs for the relevant "disputed" and policy / guideline tags. I can think of quite a few places where it would be useful. Just to save wasted effort, will you do it or shall I? I don't mind either way, it's mostly copy and paste - excpet I'd add an optional param for comment on the nature of the dispute - in the case of NOTPLOT, "whether the current version is supported by consensus". --Philcha (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I saw "Chariots of fire" decades ago. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tradition? --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that {{Disputedtag}} has the right optional params for the job, see this edit! --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

69.143.121.199

Regarding the above user and the warning I issued, the warning was issued using Huggle. In this this instance I did not use {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} but rather used Huggle to issue a warning. My recollection was that I warned for editing tests, but upon reviewing it, I may have clicked the button accidentally when trying to drag down to editing tests. Incidentally I always make an effort to match the violation to the warning whether it be neutral point of view, spam, page blanking, vandalism, or editing tests. Thanks. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FFXIII Use of Images

Personally I think it is important to reduce the amount of images, however I do believe that removing the 4 high quality images and leaving an extremely low-quality image is a flawed idea. As we know, the 5th character in the E3 screenshot has little information for a full profile such as Lightning, Snow, Oerba and Sazh. Removing the E3 would only be minor, where as removing the 4 renditions of the Fully Profiled main characters would damage a lot of work as well as the ability to allow people to fully alalyse the characters, where as the E3 shot is poor and only shows the characters faces where as the 4 pictures show their full renditions. If you feelthe size of the Image gallery containing the 4 images and links to the larger images of the 4 Main "Stated" characters of FFXIII, please reply stating the the size of the gallery is too big, as this is easily changable.

The Cosmo 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. from a different perspective, What makes you think the quality of the E3 screenshot is more acceptable than links to 4 fully-fledged images, the gallery can be made smaller to seem more barable if you wish. The whole idea of these images is for reference, the E3 screenshot is poor where as the 4 individual Pngs give an Entire prespective. The buety of the individual images is that the gallery on the Main article can be as small as we like while still giving a link to the Fully Sized ones, the E3 screenshot is the same size as it is on the Main article. Plus the images in the gallery are not technically free licensed, they are used for promotional reasons, such as being publisised with information about the game, such as wikipedia articles. The Cosmo 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am copying your artguments to Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#Too many fair-use images and responding there. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me Explain The Cosmo 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC) It was you who put it up for deletion, the person who did before you did not see the correct license tag 1st. The Cosmo 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have now stated it's reason to exist, it exists to give reference to the 5th character who has been shown within the E3 FFXIII Trailer of 2009, not much information is known, and thats why it's a very minor picture, if you would like me to reduce it's resolution then please leave me a message. The image itself gives Visual information about the character, and if that isn't evidential enough, the paragraph written next to the image gives instant reference to the image. I had not yet finished adding the image to the article since I began to get countless claims from people who snap at instant changes. But I got there as I do and as many do. The Cosmo 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry is I ever sounded rude,

I know you do not particularly like me very much, but can you please stop removing my gallery, It has a reason to exist. All of this was resolved on my talk page with a good friend who has the same position as you. The Cosmo 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag: Thanks for the note, have commented. Would you mind readding the deletion notices on the new file? I don't want to breach 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When will we come to a consensus, considering that my 5th image was created by me using Square-Enix content from a promotional video. And I may edit the licensing tags on the other 4 from promotional to Non-Free 3D art as I originally intended to until being given advice from another wikipedia user to make it Promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCosmoX (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I apologise about the 3 revert rule, but deleting the images is a bit hasty at this moment in time, plus, I would like to know who will be the person who deletes them if it comes to that. I am Able to explain in as much detail as you like. To the Talk page! The Cosmo 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question on the FFXIII talk page. The Cosmo 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just written a new section to our discussion on FFXIII talk page, but I am currently having edit conflicts, Thank you for deleting the NORA 5th Character file as requested, I will now supply reasons for existance on the talk page once I am able to submit the new content. The Cosmo 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to my reply on the FFXIII talk page Could you also specify a valid reason for why they are up for why you reverted my revision of using Text Based links rather than the Unapproved galleries? Thisis no longer making much sense as the Text Based links have nothing to do with the Section we have been discussing the use of the gallery on upon the talk page apart from the fact Text Based links have been proposed. I feel that you are more dead set on deleting the images than helping towards a compromised solution. The Cosmo 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Also, I have not seen any speedy deletion tags placed on the files, nor any links to a new discussion page. The Cosmo
No free equivalent. Not as of yet, the game itself will be copyrighted for many years.
Respect for commercial opportunities. It is being used for an identicle purpose as to its original marketing role.
Minimal usage. I wouldn't say less quality would convey the level of information these can, but of course this is one of the questioned. The solution is within reason, by keeping the images uploaded within acceptable guidelines, such as the compromised Text Based links the fact that the images are large or because there are a few of them is within reason of that, they are individual pictures, for individual characters.

Again, text-based links to non-free images are not used in articles. This is not even a possible solution; it is never done on Wikipedia. If the images are not going to be displayed within an article, they cannot be displayed anywhere. How many times must I repeat myself? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Minimal extent of use. Same applies here as for Minimal Use. With the exception of that the license permits high resolution use.

What license? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous publication. Within an extremely vast amount of internet resources and various other media.
Content To a scientific analytical degree.

There is nothing "scientific" about them, they are decorations. No one is trying to scientifically analyze these video game characters. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Media-specific policy Yes, all of this was completed on submission.
One-article minimum Yes, well, they were until they were removed by the person in question.
Significance This has been discussed, their significance is to give complete visual reference as well as text based reference.

They are not significant, fair and square. They do not contribute understanding that text would not, and even if they did they aren't necessary in the article. It's easy enough just to have an external link in the bottom of the article, linking to a "site with images and screenshots of FFXIII characters". Finally, this is not the article about the characters, it's the article about the game. If you had read my FFD posting, you would know this. If there is ever an article about Lightning, then a picture like this might be acceptable. It's not acceptable, though, in an article about the game. You can search Wikipedia's featured articles about video games for hours, you will not find any video game articles that have images like this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why must we copy the styles of ever other wikipedia article, for consistency I'm sure, but in this case it would seem more of a shining example of the 'high definition revolution', preventing this sort of progress. Sticking to the principles of everything is nice, just because their is a difference does not mean we should do anything drastic. The Cosmo 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about consistency or style. The reason other articles don't have images like that is because it's against copyright law, just as it would be in this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions on location. Yes they were in an article, maybe NO_GALLERY would have been a better solution?
Image description page. Yes the Files included all of the criteria for this.
The Cosmo 02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then wikipedia should'nt really bother with Non-Free images at all. The Cosmo 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why there are non-free content criteria: non-free images are not a violation of copyright law if they satisfy some very stringent criteria. If they do not satisfy the criteria, then they are not allowed. Apparently you have read through WP:NFCC without really understanding its underlying message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Notify me if you prefer deleting them earlier than requested, this is good practice to avoid misconduct. The Cosmo 14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

David Straitjacket

hmm... I see your point. I met David a good while ago and we discussed the condition. So I know my edit is factual. He is also happy with it being public knowledge. But that is the only reference I can find. Not sure how to get around this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The vegan one is pretty easy though. He has mentioned it quite a few times in interviews ect. He was up for an award as 'Vegan of the year 2008' as well.

• http://brighton.veganfayre.co.uk/kids-area--foyer
• http://brighton.veganfayre.co.uk/campaigns-room
• http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=45487289&blogId=360342778
• http://www.bristolveganfayre.co.uk/awards.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.254.189 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

broken template

I think that you broke Template:ffd2, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_15, the first entry has a section title with the link just like all the entries for June 14, but the ones below have a broken title instead of having no link. I think that I have fixed it, and new entries on the list should appear like you intended. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yep, good catch. It looks like I forgot to remove the piping; thanks for fixing that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

deleted page re:copyright

I'm new to creating pages on wikipedia. You just deleted my addition "Ottawa Ukraina". I was trying to put information on there for my local soccer team, and grabbed the information from our website. I cited where the information came from at the bottom of my page, but i guess that wasn't good enough. What do i need on there so that if i copy an article from my website, my wikipage won't get deleted?

Acousinspanchuk (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't copy text from another website into Wikipedia; you have to use other websites just as a source. So, for example, if the website has a long history of your team, you can't copy it, you can just summarize it and leave a footnote explaining where the information came from (with a link to the website). See the Wikipedia tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article for more about how to do this.

For more information on how to cite sources without violating copyright, see this helpful dispatch.

Finally, before you re-create the article, make sure you have read What Wikipedia is not. This will help you understand Wikipedia's content guidelines. If you do not follow these guidelines, your article might be deleted even if it is not a copyright violation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Eat Poop You Cat

I thought this might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

clarification please...

I saw you deleted File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg entering WP:CSD#G7 in the deletion log -- that is "good faith request by author" -- correct?

I don't believe I actually requested deletion. I thought I was requesting input from others as to whether it should be deleted. Am I missing something? Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I (and PassportGuy) were confused about your intentions, since you had taken it to ffd...to be honest, I was in a hurry and didn't even notice your name, I had assumed it was posted there by a newbie who didn't know about db-author. Would you like me to restore the file?

It might be better to post a question somewhere other than ffd (I'm not sure where that would be, though), because I think once people are in ffd they'll have a knee-jerk reaction, like I did, to just delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please restore, thanks.

I did request opinions, over at the commons Village pump. No joy. Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I thought I had restored it, but it seems to have only restored the file description and not the file itself. I'll have to ask a more image-savvy admin to take a look. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't know how to add a fair-use rationale.

So if you could help me out with that, it'd be most appreciated. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Final Fantasy XIII. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave everthiing the way it is for now, I will be offline for a while to get some sleep. I will notify you when I'm online again. BTW, you don't have PSN by any chance?
Speak to you later, and please leave everything for now. The Cosmo 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I know you love removing suspicious files, here is a treat for you to delete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FFXIII_Characters*.png
Don't thank me. This image is no longer required on wikipedia (or never was under circumstances). The Cosmo 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Please add the images information to XCosmoX/Image data as you have done with the previous 4. You may delete now. Be sure to refer to the FFXIII talk page to see the current discussions progress. The Cosmo 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

copyright of WORK

Hello,

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [3], [4], [5]. I also published that work under the free license, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. For reference please see my website http://kallar.weebly.com.

I have also send mail to wikipedia for copyleft statement.

I would like to start that article again please tell me if it is against laws of wikipedia, also help me to improve that article.

Thank you, Rajnwiki (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're talking about. Please give me a link to the deleted article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I assume you're talking about N.P Manicham Errthaandaar. I did not delete the article because of copyright issues, I deleted it because it's about a real person and doesn't explain why that person is notable; Wikipedia has a notability guideline and you are not allowed to write articles about anyone unless you can demonstrate that they have been the focus of significant coverage in other sources (for example, major newspapers). If you intend to write the article again, you need to read WP:Notability and WP:Your first article so that you will know how to do it without violating guidelines. When you are ready, don't start the article in its article page, but do it at User:Rajnwiki/N.P. Manicham Errthaandaar, a page in your userspace; you can use that location to prepare the article, and once you think it's ready you can ask me to move it to article space.

Also, even if you hold the copyright for your website, you cannot simply copy your website into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with its own style guidelines, and does not accept text copied from other places. Anything you write for a Wikipedia article needs to be new writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)