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.

Ashley92995

Sorry that i didn't respond to your messages for a while. I'm having a hard time editing the references the right way, I don't know how to set them up right. I don't want to ruin the page or make it a bad article but the fact that I can't fix the citations right is negatively effecting the page. So if could, could you try to help me fix the references or show me how to because I'm very confused on how to do them correctly. Sorry for any trouble that I have caused you or the articles page. - Ashley92995

Thanks for the example on how to create a good reference, I think I understand how to do it now, I just edited and corrected all of the refs in Albas Charites and Politics section in the her personal life section, so if you could review it and tell me if I did it right it would be helpful.

What if i revert my edits that I've recently done to Alba's careen section, could you leave other edits, because I agree a majority of my edits aren't to very important to the article (adding non-major things), but some are, so If I remove things that are unnessisary on my own, and you review the page after I'm done and like it can you leave my other of my edits alone, or you can tell me what you don't like and I'll remove it.

Im going to re-edit and undue a majority of my edits, If you like the way the page is when I'm done could you not un-due my other edits.

I just edited, and finished the article. I compared the article before I edited it and after I finished editing it and It does look the same, thou some notable differences are that I added a qoute box in Public Image section, minor edits to Early Life, and relationships, a photo to Career Section, added a Other Awards Chart to Awards section, added The Killer Inside Me, and Valentines Day to career section, and added the the shark incident, and her offer to act free for the aids foundation to the Charity's section.

Also, thanks for being understanding, and for helping me. - Ashley92995

Re:

The refs look fine. I couldn't find any obvious errors, everything looks ready. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Would we be able to find a CC or GFDL image, or request permission for one, to improve the article? There are a number of places to search, such as flickr, where amateurs may have photographed people in public. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched flickr for a while and found nothing free; for some people I searched (like Stephen Chow) there were nice non-free images that I could request permission for, but for Zhang Yuqi I don't remember (most of it was just images people copied from somewhere on the internet). Not surprisingly, we are short on pictures for most Asian celebrities, since most en-wiki users aren't from there...even pretty huge ones like Cecilia Cheung and Xu Jinglei are missing photos! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I got some permission, and have an image up now (and a couple new photos of Stephen Chow came free with the package!). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Modified your block

Hi, just a note to let you know I modified your block of Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to indefinite. I'm not questioning your block, but there's a pretty big wp:username issue that it took me a moment to perceive. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, a username block seems somewhat harsh. I'm aware of what you are concerned about, but I am unconvinced whether a straight up block was the right idea, especially since the user has been communicative? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef is fine with me—assuming that "indef" means "until he changes his name", not "forever". The user, while being a bit of a dick, looks like he's starting to be ready to work cooperatively and follow guidelines, and could be a constructive user, so once the username is changed I think he should be allowed to edit again. Also his argument about the talk page guidelines and stuff made me aware that the guideline page really doesn't say anything about how we shouldn't edit archives (I'm going to suggest an addition this afternoon when I have some free time), so in a way he has already done something constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about DYK hook length

Hi, I have a question for you regarding DYK hook. The required hook length should not be over 200 characters, but does it include "*...that" or "(pictured)?" ?--Caspian blue 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I think usually "that" and the question mark are counted, "..." is not, and "(pictured)" is debateable; I usually count it because it's a pain to leave it out of the count, but if a hook is borderline I might leave it out, or if there is extra text inside the parentheses (for example, (flag of Kazakhstan pictured) ) then I'll count the extra. Also, you count the characters in the actual text, not the wiki-text in the edit window (so you don't count formatting like [[Example|this example]]). The easiest way to count is to paste the hook into this counter.

I'm not sure which hook you're looking at, but as far as I can tell the Zhang Yuqi hook is 142 characters (including (pictured)) and the Psycho Donuts one is around 160. Oops, I just realized you're not necessarily asking about one of my hooks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag's mostly right, but I'd say DYKcheck is the easiest way to calculate hook length. :P Shubinator (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Rjanag for the detailed reply. I reviewed Hyperion (Longfellow), and if I exclude "(pictured) and "...that" from the alternative hook suggested by the nominator, the hook characters are counted as "195", if not, it has 214 characters, so I needed a correct rule on hook. Shubinator, you have a very good tool for that!-Caspian blue 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Hey Rjanag, I thought you may be interested in this:

{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 125K |counter = 6 |minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 0 |algo = old(48h) |archive = User talk:Rjanag/Archive%(counter)d }}
Just add it to the top of your page and it'll save much time. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I've thought about doing this, but I also kind of like having control...specifically, it allows me to avoid archiving threads that I haven't dealt with yet or have been procrastinating about (for example, the Ashley thread at the top of this page has been sitting there for a week or two waiting for me to do something about it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Thank you for reviewing the 3RR complaint. I trust I can come to you if edit warring continues. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As to "Since the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone"- The reverting stopped because I didn't want to break the 3rr rule. Apparently that was error, because you now tell us, in effect, that 3rr is merely advisory: it won't be enforced if it would "prevent [the editor violating the rule] from participating in the discussion." The practical effect, whether you think you're endorsing it or not, is that the version preferred by an editor who broke the rules trumps objections to it made by those who make a good faith effort to stay within the rules. What is the process to appeal your call? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at AN: [1]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zhang Yuqi

On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Yuqi, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 14:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

But is Jimmy Wales the fouder of Wikipedia?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

That is what I have been trying to tell him, but he keeps accusing me trolling.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He just did the same thing to your comment.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what he does on his own talk page. Just ignore it. The issue here is the article, not his talk page. What you need to do is start a section of the talk page explaining why you disagree with his edit; continuing to revert at the article is useless. Once that talk page discussion is started, both of you should be going there rather than reverting; if people continue reverting instead of discussing, either or both of you could be blocked. I have no reason to block the other user, th ough, if you haven't started a discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that I now see his point.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. In the future, please don't canvass other editors in a dispute like you did here. If you are having a content dispute at some article, go to one of the appropriate pages (WP:Third opinion, WP:AN3, a WikiProject, etc.) to report the problem, don't just leave a message with some random editor. I have not been involved in editing the Jimmy Wales page and I have no idea why you chose to message me; when you left your first message I didn't even know what you were talking about. If you are going to seek input from other editors, you need to at least explain what the problem is. Please keep these things in mind in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, again I'm really sorry.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

If there is consensus to include something, but not consensus on how it ought to be included, there isn't consensus on its inclusion. Let me put the question in more functional terms: in what circumstances, or after what period of time, will I not incur a 3RR or "edit warring" block for reinserting the quote?

Just saying "when there's consensus" isn't an answer. Without some quantification of what constitutes sufficient consensus, your claim that I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes" starts to look like the Obama rhetorical strategy of saying you're for doing X in principle, but then setting up so many caveats and obstacles to doing X that doing X is, in practical terms, impossible. You suggest getting additional opinions, but (mindfull of WP:CANVAS) I have used the 3d opinion process several times before, and it is a crapshoot whether one gets from it little input or no input at all. Weeks can go by before we get additional input.

And even if/when additional input that supports inclusion is forthcoming, you still leave me in an untenable situation. What is the threshold is for having achieved "consensus"? Without knowing where the line is, no matter how many more users endorse my position, I still can't risk putting the material back, lest you block me, citing your decision about Garcia's 3RR violation. The practical upshot is not that "[h]e gets 'the last word' for a day or so while we discuss things at the talk page," but rather, that "[h]e gets 'the last word'" for the indefinite future, unless someone else, by sheer chance or by my (inappropriate) request, inserts the same quote.

It doesn't stop there, either. It isn't clear how broadly your warning sweeps: am I on notice for any reverts (or anything that can be so characterized) at Clarence Thomas, or just for the sections at issue in yesterday's controversy? By imposing this amorphous standard that maximizes your discretion, you have effectively issued me a topic ban on Clarence Thomas for having the temerity to report someone for breaking the rules and lacking the courtesy to violate them myself.

Lastly, it is grossly inappropriate that this issue is being brushed under the rug at a talk page. It amounts to an allegation of administrator misconduct, and whether I'm in the wrong or you are, this is an issue that ought to be aired at AN or one of its sub-boards. Since talk pages are not private fora, I am therefore boldly copying your comment and my response to a subsection of the AN debate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You originally posted at AN saying you just wanted a third opinion on the AN3, which is what you got. If you are wanting to accuse me of administrator misconduct, you are welcome to do so, start a new thread somewhere, be my guest. You can even insist that I be desysopped if you like. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your desire to suspend a sword of damocles over my head and then duck questions about the propriety of that decision or under what circumstances I can avoid it being dropped on me is hardly a good reason to allow you to sweep the question under the rug. Quite the contrary. The more arbitrary and discretion-conferring an administrative action, the stronger the need for it to be broadly reviewed. What's more, your self-evident displeasure at being asked to justify and delineate the application of your decision (for example, telling me to "go fuck [my]self") strengthens the case yet further, since a reasonable observer might think future actions you take against me motivated by spite if these concerns are not resolved ex ante. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be taking future actions against you; admins don't block people they have a history with. Get out of here and find something else to do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Since you weren't notified, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_an_administrator.27s_actions. If I were you I wouldn't respond. Shubinator (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I won't be responding. On to happier things! :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator you should know better than telling users to go fuck themselves. It really makes us all look bad when our fellow admins cannot follow Wikipedia's basic requirements of civility. Chillum 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, what makes you all look bad is that you'd have blocked or at the very least threatened to block a regular editor for having said that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You're a regular editor, and you've gotten away without blocks after saying things just as bad. So we're all potty-mouths, oh well, whatever. I'm not losing any sleep over it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Rjanag has demonstrated quite well that he is not quick with the blockhammer and use it only when it is strictly necessary. I also think he knows full well that he crossed the line there and that he won't do it again. So again there is no need for a block, as blocks are not used punitively.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the sig guidance. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

request for clarification

In the AN/I thread about you doubt is being expressed about whether you realize that telling editors to "go fuck themselves" is unacceptable behaviour. I myself believe that you are aware of this and have all intentions of not repeating that behaviour, but other editors are less sure. You might want to clarify your stance however just to remove any possibilities of stains on your integrity.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that coming from me it will mean virtually nothing, but I have weighed in at the same thread to oppose a block. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

lol

"Sorry, girls, but this photo isn't a poster, and this article isn't your bedroom wall..."

= win.

Pandacomics (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A message from your user page. (Not from me)

Sorry about using this page like this to message you, I couldn't find a forum page but would like to raise some points. Since you were listed as an active user it looked like the best place to raise questions.

1) There are several languages listed on the main page. Why isn't Mandarin listed among them? 2) Mandarin should be listed among them as it is one of 6 International languages used at the U.N.. Also Mandarin represents a user base of possibly 2 billion, why has no effort to translate been done? 3) Hindi should also be listed among them as it contains 1.2 Billion users, why has no effort to translate been done either? 4) It has been years since Wikipedia's presence on the internet. These two critical languages should be featured by now. But they are not. Meanwhile all major European languages with far less users are featured. Is this intentional or a geo-politically motivated statement of some sort?

Other than that, no problems with Wikipedia for now, it is a very informative and helpful tool which is mostly accurate. Keep it up! But address these issues!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.38.158 (talk)

I believe it's because Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have that many articles and isn't well-developed yet (probably partly because of the Great Firewall). Wikipedia has no "staff" and doesn't choose how much a certain language wiki is developed, it's all done by volunteers, so we don't have any direct control over how much work people are putting into zh-wiki. You'll notice that Japanese wiki is listed on the front page, because there are a lot more people working on this.

I'm about to run now but I'll try to look into this for you more later today. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The List of Wikipedias by article count has the Chinese Wikipedia as the twelve largest. The languages surrounding the logo are the 'Top 10' in alphabetical order, and you'll find that Chinese Wikipedia is under the 100,000+ articles list again in English alphabetical order. In order to get in the Top 10, Chinese Wikipedia would have to overtake Sweden and Russia. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep -- the languages that are put on the front of Wikipedia aren't determined by how many speakers they have worldwide, but how well-developed that language's Wikipedia site is. It's unfortunate that Chinese is not there, but we can't just add it because we think it's an important language (where would we draw the line? what about when other languages start showing up and saying "but we're important too?). It is a shame, of course, but all we can do is hope that more Chinese speakers will take an interest in editing zh-wiki (if the PRC government changed its attitude towards Wikipedia that would also help; as it is, most editors of zh-wiki are people living outside of China); I would help out with that but my Chinese is not good enough for encyclopedia writing, I can only read articles there and do gnomish minor fixes. Of course, one of the main problems has always been that English Wikipedia sucks away most of the talent that could be used for other language Wikipedias...because it is perceived as the "best" Wikipedia and the only one worth using, we have thousands of non-native speakers of English struggling to edit here (and having most of their edits reverted because their English isn't good enough to communicate here) when they could be so much more productive if they edited at their own language's Wikipedia, which needs them badly anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns about my username

Hi Rjanag. Thank you for the concern about my username, but I can't imagine how it would be seen as an attack. Could you clarify? Linguistixuck (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it seems to be saying "linguistic suck" ("linguistics sucks"?) or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact origin of this username since I created it four years ago (admittedly, I created this account for vandalism, although I have been a good faith contributor for some time now). I wouldn't object to changing the "x" to a "k" if that would be better. Linguistixuck (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice, although "Linguistikuck" still seems a little weird to me. Anyway, once you have decided on a new name, you can change it by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with Liguisxack. BTW, I'm not anti-linguistics at all. I think Steve Pinker was on my bus today. Linguistixuck (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ITN for East Turkestan independence movement

On 6 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article East Turkestan independence movement, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--candle•wicke 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The riots are in no way shown to be connected to the ETIM (independence movement). Connections with the ETIM are being supported by the Chinese government, and all sources connected with ETIM are denying their involvement. Having the information in that article is potentially misleading and violates NPOV. Also, there are plenty of new sources becoming available all the time (the NYT, for example, just put up an article a little bit ago), so please remove the speedy delete tag. I'd be expanding it now if I wasn't talking to you (I mean that in a good way - I appreciate your efforts, I'd just rather spend my time expanding the article). Otebig (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the riots weren't officially ordered by separatists of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement doesn't mean they're not related to the general Uyghur-China tensions, which is what the East Turkestan independence movement article is about. The movement is an idea, not necessarily an organized body, and the fact that these riots are happening is relevant to the idea. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your logic for keeping it there is incorrect. See my response on the AFD for a bit more detail, and please address that before undoing my edits. I study Central Asia politics, and while I know expertise doesn't count on Wikipedia, I'm mentioning it just to beg a tiny bit of AFG that I'm familiar with the complex underlying reasons why keeping it on ETIM is a pro-POV decision. Otebig (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, we keep edit conflicting each other :). I'm not getting the independence movement and the islamic movement confused. Again, see above, I am quite familiar with these issues and know which is which. Anyway, if you could, hold off on all this for a little bit and give me time to edit the article itself instead of the AFD and your talk page. Otebig (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just saw your note about the other sandbox article. Yeah, merge them, that sound good. Thanks! Otebig (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The POV issue is still there, though. Will you update the ITN to the new article, and then we can make a link to the new article in the See also section of the ETIM article (as in now down for the 2008 Uyghur unrest article?) Just saw what your wrote on my talk page. Sounds good. Otebig (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but the main page still links to the ETIM article. I saw the ITN template was updated, but why hasn't the main page link changed? I emptied my cache and checked on several other machines/browsers, they all go to the ETIM article still. Otebig (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK preparation

Hi again, can you move one of the preparations to queue five so I can do another queue please? I'm on a roll! :D --candle•wicke 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, ITNs are always generating a bit of a fuss... usually from people unwilling to assist in the general running of the section. --candle•wicke 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The riot or terrorist incident

A bomb and bus set fired....some violence against the civilian,don't you mind categorize it to terrorist incident?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is not terrorist,leave your rationale on the talk page--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

hey, you're faster than I am... riots/crimes, etc. Good job :P Seb az86556 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm off to class now t hough....so I'll have to rely on you to be the defender of the wiki! ;) (just kidding, don't worry...there are so many eyes on that article right now that any vandalism of POV-pushing will be reverted very quickly). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

ok, you take over, I'm getting tired. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Halloween DYKs

Is it too early as I have reviewed a Dracula-related one? --candle•wicke 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think probably...in the past consensus has been not to expand April-fools-like exceptions, since there are so many holidays that might start asking for them. Other people at the DYK talk page might disagree, but personally my vote would be just to run it now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will leave a question on the talk page to see what people think. --candle•wicke 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Urumqi

hi again... still on that Urumqi-article, eh? I'm not familiar with with Chinese... Simplified/Traditional -- why does one date have only 2009, the other only 7.05? Seb az86556 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In mainland China, it is common practice to write dates like 7.05, where it is MONTH (dot) DATE. This represents "the 5th of July". The other form is 2009年7月, which is "Year 2009, Month 7" (which is "July 2009")). Different places may have different conventions. Just like in America, we have aluminum-framed color motorcars, and in Britain, we have aluminium-chassis colour automobiles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thx Seb az86556 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

urumqi2

somebody opened the "terrorism"-debate in a separate string again, was removed for trolling, yells (bold print) and all that. I was trying to tell him/her to join the ongoing discussion to no avail... any advice? thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to leave it and just ignore them. Unfortunately, we've reached the point now where the hordes of netizens are descending upon the article and you can't expect everyone you talk to to be a rational human being. It was nice during the first few hours of this when all the editors working on the article were intelligent people and willing to discuss things; now, as with all "hot topics", it's getting eaten up by simple-minded nationalists (on both from both sides, not just one or the other) who are interested in nothing other than arguing for their own viewpoint. Hopefully within a few days the interest in editing this article will have subsided from them.

In the meantime, I'm just trying to focus on the most problematic things in the article (see, for example, the new section I added to the talk page) and concentrate my energy on dealing with that, rather than the Sisyphysian battle to keep trolling off the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

True. I was getting a little carried away as well. And thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

awkward wordchoice

back to real editing, shall we :) here's a snippet from the Urumqi article/Causes (2nd paragraph)

...chairman of the Xinjiang regional government, said in a televised speech on the morning of 6 July that the movement came after a conflict between Uygur and...

"Movement"? I have no idea what that word refers to. Is that even sensible English? Fix it if you can, 'cause I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get to this; I tried to clean it up here, how does that look?

(Harmless aside...how much do you think Bekri was paid to say that? yeesh...) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense now. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. In particular, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. ¡Muchas gracias! - Minkus (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Psycho Donuts

On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psycho Donuts, 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.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I modified the Psycho Donuts article because I thought 'massive head trauma' should not be referred to as a mental illness. (One could argue that it is the cause of some mental illnesses but is that sort of like saying that a car crash is a type of a broken leg?)

Anyway, if you agree with me, you may wish to change the DYK entry, which contains the most explicit reference to MHT as a mental illness.

99.231.220.252 (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)M

Changed. I agree with you; thanks for the input. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK queues

Prep areas have been full for about 24 hours. Can you move them to Queues 3 and 4 so I can do some more to avoid a panic tomorrow? --candle•wicke 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick - do you think "that a scene in a lake in Skins episode" would be better if it was changed to "that a lake scene in Skins episode"? --candle•wicke 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch; I'll change it. Usually I try to copyedit and trim the hooks as I move them, but I just sort of hurried through these ones. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Multilingual ethnic group

What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 Urumqi riots

Hello,Rjanag! I am very glad to receive your message. It is not me who changed the paragraph a lot. But I think we'd better pay more attention to the other two users. Perhaps they are in a war now. It is not very good for wiki. Best wishes! --Sadmovie (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you and reverted my own revert. I got my back up over some rhetoric used in the comments and misread the changes. I went back over the reliable sources, went back over my own edits and put everything back except for changing the word mistake to error, which I believe is more neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

Will you please investigate this a little bit more. I know your busy, but its an easy case by looking at the talk. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not really interested in reading all the discussion archives and determining who's "right"; like I said at the 3RR page, Wikipedia policy is that you must not revert without consensus, no matter how right you are. You should present your arguments at the talk page, and seek extra input and third opinions at WT:3O or relevant WikiProject pages. No matter how wrong you believe the others are, you do not have the right to edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try the Third Option. It is difficult to fix an article if there are three or four editors who are unified in their original research. Osprey9713 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your looking into this. The "original research" charge is baloney, btw. I know you're not interested in content disputes, so I won't bore you with the details. But if we can get Osprey to work with the process instead of hammering things through, we might be able to help him get most of his information into the sections to which it applies (instead of overwriting other material in the wrong sections). But first -- we have to get him to follow the process.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Non-free images on July 2009 Ürümqi riots

I'll keep an eye on it. If images come back, I will revert and join the discussion. Feel free to message me if I'm being slow. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted some of the other user's other edits, but I am not happy continuing. I do not want to get involved in the editing of the article itself at this time, (and I have a horrible feeling I have reverted some edits that were sound) I am only happy to remove the images. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to review his contributions- I have no idea if they are legitimate, POV-pushy or what, and I am certainly not in the mood to investigate. I have asked the user to stop using the images, and I hope they will comply. I'm sorry if this whole approach seems very meek- I'm normally much more forceful with this stuff, I guess you just got me at a bad time... J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's completely understandable, and you're right that this is a pretty sticky situation. I'll try to take a look at his contribs soon. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Useless editor"

Please watch it with the personal attacks -- while that's not as bad as the ones CH was tossing back at you, it's still quite a bit over the line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. For trolls like ChinaHistorian, sometimes you just have to ignore them. Don't let your fury to respond with personal attacks, the response may be report by the troll to intendedly get you blocked. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, guys. You are right, of course; even when a troll clearly deserves it, there's no need for more attacks. What I always tell other editors is "if an editor is so obviously a jerk that everyone will know the moment they see it, then you don't need to waste your energy pointing out how much of a jerk he is"... this time I forgot to follow my own advice! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For all the hard work...

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For keeping July 2009 Ürümqi riots as accurate and NPOV as possible, especially when the POV-pushers from both sides descended.

I thought I left another message on your talk page back on the 6th, but looking now it seems to have not saved. Anyway, thank you much for the barnstar, and you deserve one for the excellent work on the riot page - you've been keeping everything running quite smoothly, in spite of your language classes. I can't imagine how little sleep you're getting right now. I'm doing language classes too, at Indiana's summer program. I'm currently in the Central Eurasian Studies department there, finishing up an MA degree. Where were your working as a research assistant (and where are you studying Uighur)? Otebig (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are just terrible

You are terrible!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

\ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to click the link at the top of the page. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

wow

damn, you're fast again. awesomeSeb az86556 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

vandalized

User WhiteTrashTalk is vandalizing your UserpageSeb az86556 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to revert the vandalism but another editor reverted it first. Anyways, you may want to take a look at the vandalism edit by User:Whitetrashfraud. The changed link seems to link to ChinaHistorian, the blocked editor. I suspect Whitetrashfraud is probably a sockpuppet of ChinaHistorian. Can anyone with checkuser right check if they're sockpuppets of not? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the moment I saw that edit I blocked the user (there's more similarities than just that; the username is a reference to CH's earlier post, and several hours ago CH posted saying he would "continue fighting until Rjanag reveals his true colors"). According to the duck test, they are clearly the same user. I did file a checkuser, though, because I am sure he will continue editing under other new accounts, and we will need to be able to deal with them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured out the user was already blocked after I leave the message suspecting that sockpuppet. Now we know that there's a tough and problematic vandal that may create another account again and again. The vandal even set up a blog telling that our actions are "white fraud." (To be honest, I'm not even white) Also, thanks for dealing with the troll/vandal. Not everyone can respond to annoying troll like him/her. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I was expecting that blog to be created, he threatened it hours ago (see User:Rjanag/ChinaHistorian, where I've started saving links and diffs for if we ever have get some serious intervention on this). I'm content for now, though, since he hasn't attempted to publish any personal information (not that he has much available on us anyway).

As for dealing with him...I should probably try taking a backseat a bit more now, since I'm already "involved" (another Uyghur proverb for the situation: قۇشقاچ بولسىمۇقاسسقپ سويسۇن. "Even if it's only a sparrow, let the butcher take care of skinning it"). Although, to be honest, I'm not sure how much difference it will make now—the user has already become a troll, nothing is going to change that now, and from the looks of his very first edits to the article he was already a troll to begin with. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly glad you, an admin, are around. However, such instances are clearly trying for you, a contributor who has dedicated a significant amount of effort to an article. The user is clearly disruptive, and I just want you to be mindful of WP:UNINVOLVED when carrying out your good work. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; you are right, of course. I took quick action with the sock because I figured it's an obvious case and I didn't want to give it any time to create disruption on such a widely-viewed article, but as things progress I will try to take more of a back seat (especially given that it's an obvious enough case that other admins shouldn't have difficulty dealing with it). Also, now that the article is off the main page the pageviews are slowly falling, stopping disruption won't feel so "urgent" anymore. Thanks for the input, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal for Joseon Dynasty

FYI, I've filed a case for Joseon Dynasty at Mediation Cabal: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-09/Joseon Dynasty. You might want to chip in your 2 won. Jpatokal (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please do some research before you make your judgment?

In these two edits [2][3] you restored comments that were removed by editors after a brief discussion at the talk page, and you didn't provide any rationale for why you are restoring them. If you didn't already know, there is a discussion at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Spoiled like pandas? about this stuff. Please leave a comment there rather than continuing to revert; reverting without discussion is often considered edit warring. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Above is the message you left on my talk page. The so called 2 edits you listed are the same one. Before you make the judgment, please do more research. Thanks!--Jinhuili (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was probably just a copy-and-paste error (sometimes I hit ctrl+c and my keyboard doesn't get it). There were two edits. I apologize if I gave the wrong diffs, but the point is just please try to stick to the discussion. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I checked the history. Indeed 2 edits. But, the 2nd one is just typo correction --Jinhuili (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe this was the other edit (same sort of revert). In any case, the important thing is not to edit war, regardless of whether it was one or two—and as far as I can tell you haven't been doing that since then, so I think everything is fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang-article

Look at the Xinjiang-article and tell me what you think -- someone just added about a huge passage (UNSOURCED) and called it "brief history".... and squeezed it in before the actual history-part. thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call on your part; the text was plagiarized from another website. Usually when I see a massive amount of information added in a single edit, especially from someone who's not an established editor, I try Googling a few select sentences from it to do a quick check for plagiarism.

By the way, for future reference... if you want to report a questionable edit, it's helpful to provide a diff (which you can get by clicking the "history" tab of the article, and then finding the edit in question and clicking the "prev" link next to it; the URL of that link is the diff). It just makes it a bit easier to find the edit (for example, when I first glanced at this message from you, I thought you were talking about the July 2009 Urumqi article and I was confused for a moment). Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. Once I figure out how to hand out those barnstars, you'll get one :P Seb az86556 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet?

July 2009 Urumqi Riots Sorry, me again. "First Time Again" seems like a sockpuppet of "Oooh75" which seems like a sockpuppet, too. If there's a petition to block him/her -- I'll sign it.:P Seb az86556 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was just about to leave a message asking about that; based on how FTA's first edit ever was reverting, I assumed it was a sock, I just hadn't had time yet to see whose edit he was reverting to. They do look pretty similar (this edit from Oooh75, in particular, is just like FTA's)... a lot of editors have been making similar edits so it's not necessarily damning evidence, but it's enough to be concerned. For now, though, FTA is so close to getting blocked for edit warring that I wouldn't worry to much about it, since it looks like he'll get blocked for one reason or another anyway. Then if he starts using other accounts after that one is blocked, it will be easy to tell who the socks are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Yes. I am new and this is the first time I am trying to edit. I do not know every rule of Wikipedia yet. Thank you for helping me out. What I do not understand here is why the numbers can not be shown and why you (may be one other person) can put it out the way you like but we can not.