User talk:Rjanag

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

Click here to leave me a message saying I'm great, or here to leave me a message saying I'm terrible.
Click here to leave me any other kind of message.
Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ after it.

Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese

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

Leehom Wang's Nationality

Hi! Wang was born and raised in the US. There is no question that he is American. Given Taiwan's nationality rules, he is probably also a citizen of Taiwan ROC through his parents. Calling him American-born Taiwanese implies that he was only born in the US, perhaps while his parents were living here briefly or something. Look to Yo-Yo Ma's page. He is a French-born American. He was born in France, but is not a French citizen. Wang is an American and a Taiwanese (most probably). Therefore Taiwanese-American captures both of his dual nationality.

Penser (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

You can suggest this at Talk:Leehom Wang; there are many editors who watch this page and are concerned with these nationality issues, so it needs to be discussed before changes are made. You may also want to seek opinions from User:Readin and User:Arsonal, who have been more involved in this article than I have. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this has been discussed for a while, going back to 2006, in fact. The consensus is pretty much that he is an American (this is documented and not really something that can be disputed). The real point of contention in the past was whether his ethnicity should be described as Taiwanese or Chinese. That's one of those contentious issues that probably should not appear in the lead sentence unless someone has a source where Wang describes a preference in describing his ethnicity. Cheers!Penser (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

I'm in the opinion that we should not speculate. There is no question that he is an American, but we can only speculate whether or not Leehom (and/or his parents) possesses ROC citizenship. In my opinion, his parents can be considered Taiwanese Americans but not for Leehom. I prefer leaving the lead saying he is an American who gained fame in Taiwan because this is the definite fact, and he never actually grew up on the island. Arsonal (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced speculation. Penser (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

Actually, I believe Arsonal was saying that your proposal was speculation—anything suggesting Wang has Taiwanese citizenship is. But note that in the article, "Taiwanese" links to Taiwanese people: it doesn't say anything about citizenship, it's about ethnicity, culture, etc. Thus, there is no speculation in "American-born Taiwanese". If it makes a difference, this could also be worded "American of Taiwanese descent", which says the same thing.

I see you have reverted the article again without waiting to get any sort of consensus anywhere; please don't keep doing that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have sources using the "American-born" wording, which helps set a precedent. [1] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"American of Taiwanese descent" is definitely an improvement, although I generally prefer "ancestry" rather than "descent" because "descent" sounds like you're going downhill.

It is common amoung immigrants from Taiwan to refer to their children as "American-born Taiwanese" or "American-born Chinese" depending on their political persuasion, but the term is considered offensive by many of those children and by many Americans in general. "Taiwanese American" is often used with far fewer people considering it offensive. I don't know of anyone who would be offended by "American of Taiwanese ancestry". I'll post this on the discussion page too. However, from what I'm reading on the talk page and in the article, is ancestors are really from China, only making brief stop in Taiwan. If that is correct, then "American of Chinese ancestry" would be ok. Whether that or some other phrase should be found would depend I think on how closely his parents identified with Taiwan. Readin (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point; maybe the best way would be something along the lines of "American singer of Chinese descent, who is active in Taiwan" or something like that. I think it's important to specify his "base" (where he lives, works, etc.), as well as his original nationality and ancestry. Because, let's face it, even though he's technically American, everyone thinks of him as Taiwanese first and foremost—that's where his identity and (in WP terms) his notability are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't see this discussion.

I don't have a problem with the current wording "American of Chinese ancestry" as it is undoubtedly true (almost all Taiwanese have Chinese ancestry). I would not be surprised, however, if some see it as a slight to Taiwan. We can deal with that delicate subject when it comes up. Penser (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)penser

Kathleen Ahrens

Hi there, just to let you know I sent an email to Kathleen Ahrens:

---

Along with other contributors, I have been working on the Wikipedia article Chinese classifier. The article is relatively developed, and cites one of your papers. May I ask you to review the page? Any comments you may have will be gratefully received.

---

And she replied:

---

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm in the middles of something else right now, but I will turn my attention to classifiers for some other projects before the end of the year and I will go over your article then. Does that sound alright?

---

And I replied back saying that was great. I might be busy after university starts so I'll refer to you all her comments. Is that OK?

GeometryGirl (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting her. Judging by some of your posts on the FAC page, I gather you know her or have worked with her in real life, is that the case? (I'm just curious.) Also, if she wants to be able to e-mail me directly you are welcome to give her my e-mail address, <snip>. (To be honest, I myself wouldn't mind being in touch with her eventually, since I am preparing to do a suppliance experiment having to do with classifiers, hopefully followed by an EEG experiment, and her work is quite relevant to what I'm planning on doing.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't know her personally... I'm a student mathematician, not a linguist! (Actually, I emailed her only because she was the first academic cited in the references.) It's thanks to the internet that academia interacts much easier, and I bet I would get positive replies to half my emails if I were to send an email to every academic cited in the Chinese classifier article. (I find it also helps to have a @cam.ac.uk email address.) Concerning future work you would like to do with her, I'm sure you could present Chinese classifier as an example of the quality you can produce. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... this article has basically been practice for my literature review. I started reading papers, then when I noticed in what poor shape this article was I started rewriting it based on what I was reading. Although I must say, thanks to the extensive reviewing from you and a few others, this article is probably written at a higher quality than the literature reviews in most published journal articles! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

question

hi, a question. the source says its a VMA. why did you cross that out?--Applegigs (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not part of the main awards, it's a random little award that they happen to be throwing in with the VMAs. Look at the VMA winners site-- this award is not there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

the page that i put in as a footnote calls it a vma. also i im reading that the real name of the award is the mtv vma best breakout nyc artist. the footnote calls it a vma and the entry form calls it a vma. thats big. mtv always has had some different awards that start on different years. this is like baseball having a rookie of the year award for the first time when they started. of course the rookie was not as famous as the mvp. but it was still major league baseball giving an award. here it is mtv giving out an award they call a mtv vma for a new band. but its a vma from what i am reading.--Applegigs (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my previous message at all? Again: if it's such a major award, why is it not on the website at all? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

hi. did i miss something? i tried to say that it is clearly a mtv vma, that the mtv contest says it is, that the other material i gave you says it is, and that the mtv logo says it is. there is some official stuff there. i think that that information is pretty strong. i dont think mtv uses the mtv vma logo with something and calls it a vma and awards it at the vmas without it being an mtv vma. as to the website, who knows. maybe someone screwed up and will be fired. maybe they used last years template by accident. but that doesnt wipe out everything else. we have official statements that it is an mtv vma from mtv. isnt that enough?--Applegigs (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Only press releases. Press releases are meaningless as far as notability is concerned; these awards haven't been the subject of reliable, independent coverage. They're simply too insignificant, and they're nothing but minor local awards (in fact, they aren't even being broadcast nationally, they're only broadcast locally). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But the VMA's are notable and all that official material shows that this is an VMA though i am guessing not your favorite one. and the press release and the competition rules are from very big offical companies including mtv which runs the vmas. once its a vma i think it is notable as a big award.--Applegigs (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Re-education Through Labor camps in China

Hi Rjanag,

According to http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/5._September_2009&diff=prev&oldid=64223788 there are to many faults in the lists in the de. Wikipedia. What should be done then? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiner Stoppok (on en-wiki at least) is an unconstructive troll and his opinion matters very little to me...did you see his rants at Talk:List of Re-education Through Labor camps in China#In quest for "Judong" or Wikipedia Laowai Handbook? and User talk:rjanag/Archive6#Wikipedia Laowai Handbook? He's only here to start a fight, he's useless. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/ew fix

Thanks for repairing my report, but please forgive me as I have been up for the past 26 hours.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV VMAs are major awards

As to your deletion of the reference to an MTV VMA nomination at [2], I'm OK with it for the moment but not for the reason that you state. You refer to it as "a minor award." That is a mischaracterization. The MTV VMAs are in fact decidedly major awards. This is clearly an MTV VMA, as you can see at [3] and [4]. As such, it is a major award. And, as WP:BAND makes clear, for purposed of notability since the band placed (top 3, of 190 under consideration) it is treated the same for notablity puposes under that guidance as it would have been treated if it had won the VMA.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's major, it's still puffery. Do you see any of the other bands in that sentence introduced with "____ nominee"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there was a lack of balance, which is why I was fine the deletion. It was your mischaracterization of an MTV VMA as "a minor award" that I did not agree with.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We will see. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Duanmu

Rjanag, in response to your question on my talk page, no, I wasn't at the conference where Duanmu read his paper. I linked to it simply because a Google search turned it up. It's great to know, though, that we have some professional linguists at the RD! I, unfortunately, am a mere amateur. Greetings! Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All About The Reboot

Hey Rjanag, as I made a category of reboots in television and video games I thought it be different like sequels and prequels. Reboot is all about starting over the story creating something new which is not a sequel or a remake or a prequel, it's just something what hollywood studios did with films like Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Casino Royale. Semi-prequel are serve as both a sequel and a prequel with flash backs and flash forwards that what they did with The Godfather, part 2 and Internal Affairs 3. --Lg16spears (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry solid. Gosh, you take the editing seriously. man just having some fun. chill out yoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.93 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2009

This was not you

I'm going to guess that this is a vandal? Colipon+(Talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no, I was just making fun of some of the uber-nationalistic posters we dealt with in the last article.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Not One Less

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Not One Less, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here have a barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for replacing those 100 unnecessary Chinese language templates with {{zh}} — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Now I only need to spend a few more nights on AWB clicking the button hundreds of times, and then the migration should be complete :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Air Service Lead

Could you please have a look at User:RoyDickson/Sandbox and leave your opinion/revision of the current lead. The lead will be used for the Star Air Service article which is currently a GA nominee. I'd like to thank you in advance for your continued support and participation in welcoming(and explaining) RoyDickson to wikipedia. I hope you are noticing that your efforts are bearing some fruit ^.^.Smallman12q (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wish

thanks for the birthday wish, good to know some editors have soft hearts to go with their sharp intellects! Peace, Kbob -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with NewDYKnom

Not sure what's happened here exactly, but a couple of multinoms I recently submitted to DYK suggestions didn't format properly, see here. The problem seems to be that the comment code (<!-- ... -->) doesn't nest properly. You might want to take a closer look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks f or the pointer; I think it's fixed now. (Tested it here).

Also I noticed your nom had 8 articles...did you try to nom more than that? So far the template is only written for 8, so if you add an |article9= or beyond they will disappear. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, only eight. I could have made it a 16-article blockbuster, but that would have been pretty silly just for a bunch of ship articles I think. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My biggest nom is only 2, so 8 still looks like a blockbuster to me ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well compared to the hooks some contributors have been putting together, eight is looking like pretty small beer these days :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

another sock

can you take a look at User:Cccbut? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like NuclearWarfare got him. Sorry about the delay. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

'Wikibirthday'

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

Hello, Here is a Help Request

You responded to a request on a different board that evidently would have involved blocking a different user. Let me take a moment to try and explain the situation in a place and way that is perhaps more appropriate?

I have been waiting for corroboration of a Request for Comment during the past 3 weeks! The instructions on the Request for Comment page say not to post to another noticeboard, and that if requirements are not met, the Request is deleted in approximately 48 hours. However, the page has not been deleted through 3 weeks, and is the main reason for my delay in seeking help elsewhere.

The user inquietudeofcharacter repeatedly erred when posting on my new talk page to allege vandalism. It was his or her response to good faith editing, which happened to be pursuant to 44 short-term revisions by the other party.

After the other user refused to follow through with mediation, the mediator did not make any contributions to this web site for 3 weeks or so. During all of this time, I have been seeking help from our former mediator. Two persons are needed for a request for comment, but there has been no activity from him, and I did not try to involve anyone else in this matter.

To summarize: the good faith edits I have made are still erased, and the only way to restore the information would be through "edit warring." Nothing has been done to warrant the allegations on my talk page, thus a direct dialogue with the other user is being avoided. Hopefully you can be helpful toward me with this matter, because the interactions thus far have not been worthwhile. WayGoneOr (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he only gave you one vandalism warning; maybe it was inappropriate because some of the issues were content disagreements, but he is correct that at least one of your edits broke the link to a reference (here, further down, where you added a period in "Suppo.rt"—that would have caused the URL not to work). It looks to me like his second message to you was an attempt to explain what the issues are so that you can understand why your edits were removed and hopefully then you two can find a compromise. I don't consider that message an "allegation", and in any case Wikipedia is not a court of law.

"A direct dialogue with the other user is being avoided" won't help the matter. He made an effort to leave a message with you; you should do the same. Nothing will improve if you're not willing to talk about the real content issues and are only willing to go to noticeboards and seek blocks.

I still see no need for administrator intervention here. You guys just need to start talking, and both of you need to stop accusing one another of being vandals. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, the edit warring noticeboard was certainly not the right place to go looking for input about a disagreement that happened 2 months ago. If you want to get other editors to comment, try listing a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion or WP:WikiProject Colleges or WP:WikiProject Boston; those are more appropriate (But please note: do not list a request there until you have actually started having a discussion at the Boston College page or on Inquietude's talk page; if you list a request when there is no discussion underway, it won't do any good). The edit warring noticeboard is only used for seeking blocks for people who are being disruptive right now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your quick response is appreciated!

To his credit, as you point out, something happened with the touchpad on my netbook to inadvertently put a '.' someplace where it should not be.

Evidently, you overlooked the "Welcome Notice" that inquietude posted on my talk page? It begins "...welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies...vandalism..."

Serious problems with what he was doing have only been partially corrected. There is relevant, newly supported information, about the university being the first established in Boston. It has long been part of the article, as lucidly explained on the talk page, prior to the other user's advent. Again, he has refused to discuss this via mediation, and continued to (poorly) revise the article while mediating.

Maybe there is some way I can address other aspects of the matter through the Wikipedia:Third opinion link that you provide? Initially, I made a contribution to an entry on inquietude's page regarding the article, started by someone else, but it is archived now. The Request for Comment [5] still appears to only need another party's 'corroboration.'

If you have any other suggestion(s), I may feel quite capable of contributing. WayGoneOr (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really the person to come to asking about information, content issues, or what specifically should be written in the article; I know nothing about this topic and am too busy to start editing that article. But if you want to have a discussion about what the article should say, leave a polite message with him or with some other editor who you know is involved in that sort of topic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Alefbe

I believe User:Alefbe does not deserve to get blocked. He was actually correcting vandalism by the other user, who was deleting sourced information, substituing reliable source by poor and unreliable sources, e.g Press TV, the propaganda machine of Islamic Republic of Iran. On the other hand, the other user in Qods Day article deserves a longer blocking for clear vandalism.--WIMYV? (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Read What vandalism is not before writing any more messages like this. Disagreements over content are not vandalism. And both users were clearly edit warring; no matter who is right, edit warring is not acceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, deleting sourced information is vandalism. Is n't? He insisted to delete sourced information from New York Times, reliable books, and Aljazira, despite several warning by different users. Is not it vandalism? That incident was not content dispute. One user deleted sourced information added, unsourced information or poorly sourced materials. The other one resorted those sourced information and had constructive edits. They should not be treated the same way.

Anyhow, if you do not mind. I am going to restore deleted sourced information.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When there is clearly a content dispute, you should talk things out at the talk page; just because your opponents are blocked doesn't mean you have free leeway to continue the edit war now. If things continue I'll have no choice but to protect the other page.

And no, removing sourced information isn't vandalism if the user honestly believes that information doesn't belong. You may not agree with his reasons—his reasons may even be totally wrong—but that's all it is, a disagreement. Not vandalism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on article talk page. Perhaps you have not checked the article history. I have not reverted yet. As you see, I am discussing the issue with other users.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you wrote " another user is close" to get blocked when I am discussing the issue and have not reverted yet--WIMYV? (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your logic to block Alefbe is the same as warning me and threatening me to block when I am discussing the issue and when I have not touched the article yet. I am really cond=fused about the way you handle the problem.--WIMYV? (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I have discussed the matter with the other party on both his talk page and the article talk page, and I have not reverted more than 3 times. Izzedine (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Don't revert my edits[6]" is not a discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues with edit warring on Sharon Keller

Thank you. I will take your advice.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having spotted and corrected this nasty trick. I hadn't noticed. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Developed market

I'm fed up with reverting, again again, the strange version about the "internationally list".

P.S. I don't think his newly created accounts have to be blocked again and again; Semi-protecting the article - will be much more effective, as I realized in the case of the article: Emerging market (for more details, see his request on my talk page, here). Thank you in advance.

HOOTmag (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Benjamin's Syndrome

Thanks for the help with these IP SPAs. Can you watchlist Harry Benjamin's Syndrome? They have already reverted you. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days, hopefully that will take care of the worst of the new IPs. We'll see what happens after that.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ANI notification. I believe it's clear to anyone uninvolved what's going on, so I don't plan to get too involved. I have written on science, sex, and gender off-wiki for about 15 years, and it is a very controversial area. It has more than its share of fringe theorists who create and promulgate bogus diseases and "theories" like this all the time (everything from iatrogenic artifact by "experts" to populist disease movements). These people get very agitated when their notions are challenged and will do anything in their power to fight their perceived "enemies." Unfortunately, many come here and disrupt Wikipedia, often culminating in a permanent block. I'm traveling to speak on this topic at a university later this week, so I'll probably just let this matter run its course without much more involvement. I appreciate your help on this. Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One quick favor. Yesterday User:74.124.187.76 removed from Transsexualism an article of mine that the "HBS" proponents dislike because it is critical of disease models like theirs. (diff) I did not add it, and I try not to edit that page since my work is cited in a couple of places. Citation is: James A (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine. 3:56 ISSN:15508579. You can confirm in Google Scholar. I have it free online as PDF and Full text. If you determine that the removal was unwarranted, I'd appreciate if you could add the citation back. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Should I self-revert? I've had problems with edit warring in the past, and don't want to get into hot water again... Soxwon (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're fine; this seems to be your first edit in this dispute anyway. But probably be careful about reverting again if this goes on (because I've already decided that I'm going to block people who revert again, now that I've issued warnings).

This new section seems like something that's going to need to be written in userspace or a subpage and then approved before going into the article. I'm gonna post at the talk page in a minute. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Since you intervened last time I thought maybe you could help again. It seems that Arzel and Soxwon are still doing the same as before. I just undid an edit by Arzel that he deleted someone’s comments in the TALK page under the guise it was a personal attack yet it did not have anybody’s name in it and was a statement of replay to Soxwon. Both of them seem to be bent of editing out anything that goes against their beliefs and their bias shows up in many articles. They have even written to each other about removing negative items from conservative articles. They don’t try and work on a way to get things edited fairly they just keep deleting them and not offering any help on it. Then if added they say there is not agreement as they will not even try to form a agreement. Any help in this would be appreciated. --Marlin1975 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the history and I see that neither of them has edited the article since I warned them two days ago. I don't see what the problem is now? I'm not really too concerned about what they do at their talk pages, as long as they're not damaging an article. If you think is a problem, the place you might want to file a report is WP:Wikiquette alerts, although it depends what exactly the problem is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration of HBS deletion dispute page on request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration needed for this article's dispute page and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--CharlotteGoiar (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor you blocked may now be using socks

Hello Rjanag. Since you handled a 3RR case about Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) perhaps you could look at the report over at WT:WikiProject Physics#Poincaré-POV-pushing. I was thinking of blocking Cardinality and Iphegenia as socks of Flegelpuss, but that I would ask at least one other admin to look at the data and see if you agree. If you don't have time, I'll make another plan. Both accounts were created just after Flegelpuss's block expired and they have remarkably narrow interests, focused on F's usual topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there's probably a connection, I trust your judgment. I'm not really familiar with Flegelpuss other than that brief AN3 report, so I don't have a very good idea what his style is. I did notice that Iphegenia's only edits seem to be spelling changes, whereas Cardinality has made a lot more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Now what we can do

Now user Paradoxic just come back with a long revert of the version which was the result of our discussions and the fragile consensus with the other party. Now, what we can do? I do not want to start editwarring with him? He is unwilling to discuss and just deleting sourced information and reliable sources, NY TImes,BBC, Christian Science Monitor, two books, Aljazeera... He just accept the mouthpiece of the Islamic regime of Iran a reliable source, delete other sources. --WIMYV? (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it will be more appropriate to protect the article, since several people are reverting one another and there is also talkpage discussion going on—and I can't easily see any clear consensus there. But if you can provide me with a) diffs of Paradoxic's reverts today and diffs of the specific edits that he was undoing; b) a link to some part of the talk page that shows a clear consensus between more editors than just you and Alefbe , then that would help things along. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here [7]. Nableezi (from the other camp) and ShamWOW and I agreed to keep the assertions of both parties: Press TV report (Islamic Regime source) and reports of independent media, i.e. NY Times, Christian Science Monitor and Aljaziree. There was only a discussion ongoing on the source that I provided on association of antisemitism and Quds day when the Pradoxic came back and reverted all of our edits and deleted our sources. We let the other camp to keep their source (Press TV), but Paradoxic unwilling to keep our independent sources. He also changing sourced information adding hi own claims and POVs that are not supported by the source. See these diffs: [8] , [9] , [10] , [11]--WIMYV? (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please notify ShamWOW and nableezy of this thread and ask them to comment as well? So I can make sure they also feel there was a consensus.

I am about to be away from my computer for about 2 hours. If any of you need administrator assistance before then, you may want to try getting on touch with one of the other admins who has dealt with this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag! You participated in discussion on 2009 protest section. I should not remind you all we did. First, I said that Press Tv information should be deleted because Press TV is unreliable source. Nableezy disagreed. ShamWOW suggested both independent sources and Press TV should stay but it should be mentioned that Press TV is an state funded news media. Nableezy did not agreed, until you intervened and said that it is OK to mention that Press TV is funded by the regime. You forget that? We decided to keep both arguments, pro-government media and independent sources arguments.

The Paradoxic violated 3rr once again, because the last time you did not blocked him for the violation of 3rr, you give him more co0nfidence to violate the 3rr rule. Yu should punish him this time. He deleted information icluding the sentence " In recent years, only a marginal proportion of young Iranians have attended." 4 times. [12] , [13] , [14] , [15]--WIMYV? (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I left one comment in that section, that doesn't mean I'm totally aware of what the decisions are over the whole talkpage. Keep in mind that this is a long a complicated dispute and someone just showing up now won't necessary know all the history of what has been discussed before. The reason I couldn't tell how bad Paradoxic's edits were is that in each of the reverts there are some things he changed every time (such as the "millions" statement) and others that he appeared to be tweaking per other editor's comments. In article editing it's natural for their to be some back-and-forth editing that gradually approaches consensus, and without you giving me more information about the reverts it was very difficult for me to tell where that kind of acceptable editing/tweaking ended and where unacceptable edit-warring began. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont really care about this issue. I said that I felt that adding state funded was unnecessary and why, that is not supported by the rest of the users so I didnt remove it after it was reverted back in. I just dont want people removing things from Press TV. The rest of this is fighting over things that shouldnt even be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that it is overly focused on this years rally when the even goes back 30 years. Besides that I dont really care about the pro vs anti Iranian government bickering on the page. I think there have been a few users edit warring with each other, and that one "side" has more than 1 user reverting does not make that "side" not edit warring. nableezy - 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Press TV should be included. I believe it is necessary that state-funded or something like it be included due to the more questionable nature of its reporting. However, that should not be the issue that is preventing further editing on the article. And I agree that the article is skewed in its coverage of 2009 Quds Day but the protests on that occasion are quite unique in the history of that event. Finding a history of Quds Days since 1979 is not readily available. In general, users here need to be more discriminating in not indiscriminately deleting or adding large swathes of information. And please--be meticulous in your editing (grammar, referencing, etc.) so the article does not need to be consistently cleaned up.ShamWow (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of By Day By Night

Thanks for your message and the link to useful information about deletion tags. It will help with my patrolling. I notice that the article was deleted anyway. In your opinion, what SD tag should have been used? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Love

...you just deleted my article, without bothering to verify the fact that I typed, on the talk page, that I am a student of Ms. Love and did this WITH HER PERMISSION. Also she is featured in a list of Metropolitan Opera singers, but I can't add a page off that. Please offer help before deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operagirlk (talk • contribs)

I already left a message at your talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it a conflict of interest, as all it is is her biography, and she is listed in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performers_at_the_Metropolitan_Opera without a wiki page. I would prefer to simply be allowed to post her unbiased biography. I'm sorry if the first message sounded short tempered. Operagirlk (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)operagirlk

I would agree, were I not the person who wrote the bio for her on her webpage in the first place. Hence, not plagiarism. However, since this seems to be a sticking point, I can rewrite the entire biography so it is not the same if this will satisfy ToS. Operagirlk (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Operagirlk

Fine, however I feel that since she has already been referred to on a Wikipedia article, she deserves to have her own page. I'm not sure exactly how one can go about writing an article without your conflict of interest policy kicking in - I merely saw the reference, mentione dit to her, and she said "well, just write who I am". Conflict of interest to me would be stating how I feel about her as a person and teacher, not how many roles she has performed and where. But I understand that you are simply following rules. Operagirlk (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)operagirlk

An odd image

But it looks cool! ;) Rockfang (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please help

I've tried to start a discussion again at Talk:Borjigit, Empress Dowager Zhuang Wen to move this senseless name back to Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang. So far no one seems to be interested in participating. When it was moved to the current name, there was no attempts at consensus. "ED Xiaozhuang" is the name she is most commonly referred to, a Google-test for "Xiaozhuang" trumps all other alternative names, it is easy to find, and precise, as well as concise, fitting all the criteria of WP:TITLE. I therefore ask an administrator to help me move the article there over the re-direct. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The move is done; I'll leave it up to you to sort out the actual text in the article so it fits with the title. There are also several double redirects [16] that need to be fixed, you can clean them up today if you want or I can do them with AWB this evening. (AWB may be faster, I'm just about to go out for the day right now.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. they did have some misinformation. Now once I figure out how to put a picture in, I'll be set. :) Operagirlk (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Operagirlk

my WikiBirthday

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

Thanks!

Sorry for the confusion about the deletion tagging. Thanks for your help! --Tallen90 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Regular expression

According to WP:PLURAL, the title for that article should be Regular expression. Similarly, although the article on Turing machines is not about any specific machine, the title is still Turing machine. We just always prefer singular titles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that guideline, which I hadn't seen. Nevertheless, I think this article falls under the exception listed in "unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)". It may not always be in the plural form, but I personally have almost never heard anyone talking about "a regular expression"...it usually seems to be "use regular expressions...", "i know regular expressions...", "regular expressions are useful", etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have never heard anyone say, "I wrote a regular expression to do that"? Searching for "a regular expression" on google, with the quotes, give 6 million hits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to move it back that's fine, I was just being bold. If it's controversial then it should be moved back anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken template?

Might want to scroll down to this section to see how Template:Zh- is now missing in red. Looks like something was changed? Benjwong (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything missing, or in red? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korea /Hernandez

Hi Rjanag, I was browsing my watchlist in the run and I accidentally rollback an edit in the Korea article, I'm not an expert in the subject so can you look into that?

I dont think Dalia is notable yet, at least that my quick impression by looking at the sources in the article. Take care, --Jmundo (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit looks fine to me (and I see you self-reverted already). Korean is the language, Hangul is the script in which it's written; some people seem to prefer saying "Hangul: bla bla bla" but I think "Korean: bla bla bla" makes much more sense, since what we're actually giving is a Korean word that happens to be written in Hangul, not a "Hangul" word. (It would be like giving English translations as "Latin alphabet: bla bla bla".)

Thanks for looking into Dalia! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

95.25.237.61 - IP user's disruption

Hi, Rjanag, since you're an active admin, please look into the disruptions carried by 95.25.237.61 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)? The IP user has changed the names of Korean athletic players during the Japanese occupation period to Japanese name.[17] As if they were still holding Japanese name and citizenship after the liberation in 1945. The IP user has also added information without sources, but deleted something that he dislikes for his POV in the name of "no citation" and "NPOV". The anon's edits are of course neutral to himself/herself only. I think the person reminds me of some Russian POV pusher or open proxy editor disguising a third person. Your administrative actions or editor's input would be appreciated. Talk:List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#Koreans. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine

Hi! You must see Revision history of Template:Members of the Union for the Mediterranean for User:Izzedine's editing style. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with his disruptive editing; if you go into his user talkpage history and go back a few hours you'll see pages and pages of messages (which he's since removed) where he was trying to get unblocked and repeatedly declined, by at least 3 different admins, who basically told him "don't edit war". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Turkish Flame's edit-warring? Izzedine (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times, Izzedine, have you been told to address your own actions, not others'? You are only responsible for what you yourself are doing. Other peoples' edit-warring doesn't give you permission to edit war as well; if you edit war, you can be blocked regardless of what the others are doing. If you have a problem with someone else's edit warring, you know where to report it. Eye for an eye is not an acceptable way for you to deal with other users' editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Daryl Copeland page - Re-Post - No copyright infringement

Hello,

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

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

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

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

What was the rationale to take it down?

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

Please put the page back online right away.

Thank you.