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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

Thank you for the input.--Caspian blue 23:31, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularities (talk • contribs)

The failure to send you a message regarding the deletion is not my issue; that would have been the responsibility of User:Jpeeling, the editor who originally tagged the article for deletion. Normally the editor who tags an article also leaves a message informing the creator.

As for the copyright issues... well, first of all, whether or not Copeland wrote that text is irrelevant unless you are Copeland. To be able to post copyrighted text and claim you have the right, you need to prove that you are the person who owns that text; that is generally done by contacting Wikipedia's OTRS e-mail team through Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit. That being said, even if you do own the copyright to that text, there are several reasons not to restore the article:

1. Writing quality: even if you wrote text somewhere else, Wikipedia is its own source and should have its own writing. Directly copying-and-pasting text from elsewhere, even when it's not outright copyright violation, is often plagiarism, and is almost always lazy writing. It reflects poorly on the encyclopedia (when people find an article here and see that it's copied from elsewhere—they don't generally know the copyright background and will assume Wikipedia is full of plagiarism). If you really want to start an article about Copeland, you should do so in your own words.
2. Notability concerns and conflict of interest. If you are Mr. Copeland and hold the copyright to this text, then you are in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia guidelines (linked just above) strongly discourage writing articles about yourself, as it will be just about impossible to write from a neutral point of view. Also, the article needs to demonstrate why the individual meets Wikipedia's notability policy, which text copied from other websites usually does not do.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

unima-usa

Hi The article on unima-usa was my first attempt at wikipedia article Unima is listed in wikepedia there is the standard wikipedia note saying that no article exists on unima-usa

It was my understanding that" Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" is justification for creating an article

unima united kingdom and unima Pakistan have articles

I am new to this

how can i get an article on unima-usa added? Steve Abrams, Vice President unima-usa north american editor of the World Encyclopedia of Puppetry Arts

thx

Thaaaank you. This has been going on for days with ~20 Portugal-based IPs finding 4 or 5 different sources for the same junk... tiresome & tedious Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raptor Education Group

Hi Rjanag. Could you please userfy Raptor Education Group Inc. for me? It's been blogged here and I'd like to see what's going on. But if it was all copyvio, never mind, about userfying, just let me know. Thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Clayoquot/Raptor Education Group Inc. for now; it is borderline copyvio (clear plagiarism, but only borderline copyvio), so I'll probably re-delete it after you've had a chance to look at it. Since the blog post is from September 4 and I only deleted it yesterday, I imagine the blog is referring to this revision of it, where it was tagged for speedy deletion (and declined) back in July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest, I don't see the copyvio here. It seems that an effort has been made to change wordings. Notability is questionable, and neither of the cited references establishes notability. One of them is a broken link and the other one is not independent. But if these people have been doing good work for 19 years, I think there's a reasonable chance that someone could find sources somewhere. I'd take it to AfD if I were you, even if only to have the community take responsibility for the deletion rather than shouldering it all yourself. Just a thought. Best regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the entire text of http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm is present there; a few words and sentences are added here and there, but the website is copied in its entirety. And, as I always say when performing speedy deletions, an article like this is obvious plagiarism even if it's not certainly copyvio (like I said above, the copyvio here is borderline, and the plagiarism certain). If you think the subject is noteworthy, you're welcome to recreate the article without copyvio, or just as a stub; there's not really any reason for me to take it to AfD now since it's already deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The organization's mission statement should be in quotation marks and attributed, but with these I'm pretty sure it could be included verbatim as fair use. The part about it permits is also the kind of thing that should not be rephrased, because any rephrasing would make it less accurate. Anyway, just sharing my opinions. Thanks for chatting. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clayoquot: this does not look like a copyvio, nor suitable for an A7 deletion. By volume of animals treated alone it is a significant animal rehabilitation center; and it was better sourced than many articles we choose to keep. When someone questions a speedy deletion, and an author or interested party is obviously distressed by said deletion, those are two reasons to take it to AfD. Having one's work deleted, whatever the cause, is often grounds to leave Wikipedia and not return; and we would like to attract contributors (who will become better contributors in time, and never start out perfectly) rather than animosity.

As you suggest above, I've recreated the article. +sj+ 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You think it's not copyvio, and yet it's full of sentences literally copied and pasted from http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm ? I suggested recreating it as a stub, not recreating it as plagiarism. Like it says on my userpage: you're never going to get me to apologize for deleting plagiarized junk, it's not something we need on Wikipedia.

I see no need to take it to AfD now because I've tried to clean up the copied-and-pasted sentences and I don't really care about the notability concern. But please don't re-create plagiarism in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And as for your argument about user retention... maybe you could check the article history before making arguments like this. The article was created a year ago, so the editor has either moved on from now or already learned his lesson. In this case, the editor had been gone for two weeks and was not likely to be back anytime soon, so you can't expect me to 'work with' an absent editor to clean up plagiarism. And are you saying that user retention is so important we should leave plagiarism in the encyclopedia, just on the gamble that that user might turn into a productive editor someday (keeping in mind that the vast majority of new accounts here do not become productive)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New Signature

Hey, thanks for the code --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier on Main Page

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 3, 2009. Shubinator (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to see the TFA queue scheduled so far ahead! Thanks for the update, I'll have to inform my Chinese pals to keep their eyes out... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Raul just did a bunch up to the 4th. With the bigger queue proofreaders like Art can catch more mistakes. Plus the FA nominator gets time to spread the word. Shubinator (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MYSPACE COMMENT

You're right about that but is it bad to chat with friends while editing? 63.230.167.170 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking through your contributions, it would appear you aren't editing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun (film)

Comments as to other editor's work are not suitable for edit summaries, but the associated article talk page can be the appropriate venue as long as the evaluation was constructive. Did you consider your recent commentary to be helpful or useful? (A disclaimer, The recent comments made are "water on a duck's back" in my case as my contributions to the article revolved around assisting the primary editor, whose work and effort was considerable to take an article from a moribund state to qualifying as GA candidate.) The edits that were instituted can be further characterized as simply "author's choice" edits and do not substantially change the thrust of the passages, as I showed in a further revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

You recent note brings up valid and cogent points of divergence; I may have missed something in seeing these statements in other forums? on the article talk page? If substantial revisions are required then it is customary although under WP:Bold not necessary to address those concerns in a preliminary way. FWiW, the plot section of a movie article is, in many cases, an author's vehicle and rarely requires more than a summary. Be assured that it is not disagreement with your edits that was the issue, it was the manner in which the edit comments were used as a rhetorical device, one that was more "stream-of-consciousness" than balanced and constructive. Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Our discourse seems to be going in two different paths. I do not disagree with your analysis of the plot nor the revisions that you provided. In that regard, I made a rudimentary edit to show that the syntax and "word styling" was merely "wordsmithing" which is entirely an author's choice (a publisher's term for allowance of individual styles of expression). What was most at issue was not the revisions but the manner in which they were being described as correcting some "drivel" which can be difficult to construe in anything other than let's say, uncomplimentary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" was the subject of numerous research efforts as to ethonology. Reviewing contemporary sources and every authoritative reference on the P-51 Mustang has led to the conclusion that there is no World War II origin for the word. All this revolves around the dreaded WP:OR and has led to lively discussions with P-51 pilots, museum curators and historians, none of which can provide substantiation for the phrase, while I can point directly to Ballard's use of the literary device. He was crudely trying to assert the industrial iconography of the Cadillac to the equally redoubtable fighter aircraft. I consider it a crude device as the GM Company was indeed involved in war production, but ironically, the Packard Company produced the RR Merlin engine used in the P-51. In Ballard's elaborate "connections to home", Jim wanders a scrapyard in China to discover his father's Packard sedan. Regardless, there is no source that can identify the catchword as wartime in origin. FWiW, the use of the term "Mandarin lettering" was an unfortunate use of the verbatim terminology in the original source document. Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC).Now, don't over-react on the term, it was what the text used, and after your edit, I retrieved the magazine article and checked the source to see if they had used the word "Mandarin" which it had. Using one word does not imply a copy-viol. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cadillac of the Skies" reference has gone the way of the "Billy the Kid/William Bonney" conundrum in that when the legend reads, sounds, looks better than the truth, go with the epic story. I totally embarrassed myself this summer at an air show when the announcer proclaimed the next attraction would be the "Cadillac of the skies", and consequently, a brace of P-51 Mustangs took to the air. I sought him out after the event and asked if he could identify the source of the statement. Not only was he a P-51 Mustang pilot and owner, he was a highly regarded member of the warbird community and basically treated me like the twit I am. He carefully enunciated that he knew that the phrase was from a movie, but who cares, everyone now links it to the P-51, and you know what we old fighter guys think of you know-it-alls? (He didn't actually express the last exchange, but I KNOW he was thinking that!) FWiW, the actual phrase used by Ballard was "Cadillac of air combat" (p. 151) while the screenplay converts that to a number of comments, using the phraseology of "Cadillac of the skies". Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

I have to admit that I am actually enjoying this back-and-forth, as I had placed the edit comment in a kind of snobbish, "so there" kind of way, firmly believing that your original statements were out of the line (which I still believe...) but your recourse to reasoned, articulate discourse has completely disarmed me. As to attribution to a source that I authored, that may be problematic. As a historian (yes, you have to be officially recognized as such in Canada), with nine books and 13 films in my resume, my research on the P-51 Mustang can be traced to a meager two articles for publication and neither dealt with the origins of the type except in a perfunctory way. FWiW Bzuk (talk).

Admin edits

Could you please help with renaming File:24042008354.jpg, File:24042008350.jpg and File:24042008391.jpg as per the rationale given in the "rename media" template requests? Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should be done now. Let me know if there are any problems, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I looked it up in _two_ dictionaries... :-) Shenme (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you're right. Thanks for catching that! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pic Deletion 9/27/09

So on the terms that my picture isn't "qualified" for an encylopedia means it can't give my user page some flair? I feel then ALL pictures should be removed from user pages and all the userboxes. It doesn't make sence to me I'm sorry Spzmnky (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The multiple file names was not a circumnavigation, if you looked at the time stamps they were uploaded the same day. Try doing some research before threatening and assuming what is going on, did you ever think that I still don't have a full grasp on how to do a whole lot on WP? If Iknew how to delet a file I uploaded I would have.Spzmnky (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek at West Germany

As you just have protected the article there, please have a look at the conduct of User:Jacurek, who is wikistalking me. He had never edited this article before, and now he is reverting my edits in an attempt to provoke me. Jacurek and other Polish editors are currently under scrutiny by Arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list for such disruptive behaviour. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Try discussing the actual article with him instead of worrying about behavioral and stalking issues. I'm sure you'll be able to get a lot more done if you talk about the article itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing like you did at Elisabeth Hevelius? You seem to apply good faith in rather unequal quantities. Have you read Talk:Elisabeth Hevelius? You have reverted to a version that had already been exposed to contain the false claim that a book contains "Elżbieta Heweliusz". Knowing this now, I believe you want to revert your edit. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks.-- Matthead  Discuß   22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If people like Flroian want to make reverts, they would do well to leave edit summaries explaining why. That whole back-and-forth could have been avoided if she had taken the five seconds to say what I said in my edit summary. Next time she reverts like that she's blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What does an edit to an unrelated page have to do with this conflict? Please don't keep changing the subject. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. I have also received a friendly warning I will fully respect. Just to let you know since there is a lot more to it, the user User_talk:Matthead is currently under editing restrictions[[2]] due to his controversial edits and reverts in the past. He cannot revert more than once etc, etc. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

That was quite helpful. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)