The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I didn't see the discussion at User_talk:Dekimasu#South_Korean_and_South_Korean_(disambiguation) and I didn't see anything at Talk:South_Korea. I removed the redirect because of your original argument. Terms like "South Korean" are demonyms. Demonyms are not tied to ethnicity (the ethnic term "Korean" is an ethnonym); they refer to the residents of a region (country, state, city, etc.) Demonyms are used as adjectives, for example: South Korean history, South Korean culture, South Korean art, South Korean people. When a reader looks for "South Korea", certainly the South Korea article should appear. A reader who looks for "South Korean" is searching for a more general concept. Isn't the South Korean disambiguation page the most appropriate?

I can't find a Wikipedia guideline for demonyms that refer to countries. I ran a quick survey of 195 typical demonyms. 132 connect to disambiguation pages, 52 redirect to country articles, and 11 aren't used as demonyms. There doesn't seem to be a correlation to ethnicity in the 195 items I checked, nor should there be. Instead, should there be a consistent standard? I prefer disambiguation because, intuitively, a reader who searches for a demonym is looking for information about a general concept (in the sense of an adjective) rather than a specific country.

Used as an ethnonym or as the name of a language: Batswana, Emirati, I-Kiribati, Kirghiz, Kyrgyz, Luxembourger, Malagasy, Marshallese, Monacan, Ni-Vanuatu, Palauan

Disambiguated demonyms: Afghan, Albanian, Algerian, Andorran, Angolan, Antiguan, Armenian, Austrian, Azerbaijani, Bahamian, Bahraini, Bangladeshi, Barbadian, Barbudan, Belarusian, Belizean, Beninese, Bhutanese, Bolivian, Bosnian, Brazilian, British, Bruneian, Bulgarian, Burkinabe, Burmese, Burundian, Cambodian, Cameroonian, Cape Verdean, Central African, Chadian, Chilean, Chinese, Colombian, Comoran, Congolese, Cuban, Cypriot, Czech, Dane, Dominican, Dutch, East Timorese, Egyptian, English, Eritrean, Estonian, Ethiopian, Fijian, Filipino, Finn, French, Gabonese, Gambian, Georgian, German, Greek, Grenadian, Guatemalan, Guyanese, Haitian, Herzegovinian, Honduran, Hungarian, Icelander, Indian, Indonesian, Iranian, Iraqi, Irish, Israeli, Italian, Ivorian, Jamaican, Japanese, Jordanian, Kazakhstani, Kuwaiti, Lao, Laotian, Latvian, Lebanese, Liberian, Libyan, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Malaysian, Malian, Maltese, Mauritanian, Mauritian, Monegasque, Mongolian, Montenegrin, Motswana, Namibian, Nauruan, Nepalese, Norwegian, Omani, Pole, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Saint Lucian, Samoan, Scottish, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Somali, Sri Lankan, Swazi, Swede, Tadzhik, Taiwanese, Tajik, Thai, Tongan, Tunisian, Turk, Turkmen, Tuvaluan, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Venezuelan, Vietnamese, Welsh, Yemeni, Yemenite, Zimbabwean.

Redirected demonyms: Argentine, Australian, Belgian, Canadian, Costa Rican, Croat, Djibouti, Ecuadorean, Equatoguinean, Equatorial Guinean, Ghanaian, Guinean, Kenyan, Malawian, Mexican, Micronesian, Moldovan, Moroccan, Mozambican, New Zealander, Nicaraguan, Nigerian, Nigerien, North Korean, Pakistani, Panamanian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Qatari, Rwandan, Salvadoran, Sammarinese, Saudi, Saudi Arabian, Senegalese, Seychellois, Sierra Leonean, Singaporean, South African, South Korean, Spaniard, Sudanese, Swiss, Syrian, Tobagonian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Trinidadian, Ugandan, Uruguayan, Uzbekistani, Zambian.

This should probably move to Talk:South_Korea if it's an "issue". N.B. Please remove long lists… your choice. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine either way; I was just keeping the dablink because South Korean currently redirects to South Korea, and if it goes there then there should be a dablink to help with navigation (since people typing South Korean might not be looking for South Korea). Removing the dablink isn't a problem if we have South Korea go to the disambiguation page (and, in that case, we could just move South Korean (disambiguation) over South Korean); it's just that the dablink probably shouldn't be removed until that change is made, since otherwise people might get redirected in the interim and not know how to get to the disambig page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:South_Korea#South Korean redirect --Mtd2006 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the DVD ref to the article, I was not comfortable adding it as I could not find the info. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem...I'm always eager for a chance to show off my geekinessForrest Gump knowledge. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Linguists, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good DYK Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your email to me. YEs Can i make a The Sanaz Shirazi Collection instead and have the sanaz shirazi wiki removed? Thank you—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 March 2009

But if I make any chances will they block and delete me from wiki? They told me I cant make anymore changes to the page. Can someone help me edit the new page first before I post it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please show me how to use a footnote like you mentioned. You are too kind. Thank you Qchristina (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The designer does not live in Norway and she was raised in several countries. Can we add this info to the text ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We have been in arguments with the 2 journalists mentioned on the article, and would like to remove their links of their names. How is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear R. Its not the journalists but the article contains old facts and its not into the facts. So i wanted to remove it. I dont work for this brand or this person. I have great interest in Iran and fashion and know more about this subjects. Thats all. Thank you. I didnt mean actual arguments just that I disagree with the facts mentioned there. So I wanted to remove the 2 links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I add youtube links of tv clips to this wiki article? ----

I know I have tried my best but cant seem to get it right. Can you please show me the easiest way to add author names etc to these references? than you. Als can I add links to youtube interviews?

How long will the wiki page say that this page needs editing etc? It comes uptop of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.167.110 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It will say that until I, or some other uninvolved editor, decides the problems have been addressed and removes them. As of yet, I still think the article needs cleanup. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure why not. I just figured by leaving that section there, editors might be more likely to see it and from there expand on it. I can easily see where you're coming from though.Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You put a notability tag on this article before, then later said it was good after the nominator made some tweaks. Can you take down the notability tag if it's good to go? It's in queue 5 now and the oddity has been noticed. Shubinator (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for the formal language yesterday; I was writing up some formal stuff and it crept into my online writing. Oh, one random thing: I've noticed a small difference between the new DYK nomination template and the blank queue page; the nomination template has a space between the {{*mp}} and the ..., but the blank page doesn't. Maybe we should change one of them so we're consistent? Shubinator (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. The blank queue page is what was there originally, so I'll take that as a precedent and fix the space in the template. Thanks for pointing that out, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done what I can as requested on my DYK nomination, please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Donnie Park (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have reformulated. If it's too long, you can omit the link to the pathogen's article. Just let me know. I came across this article doing short page patrol as a bad redirect, and someone came along and did a great job resurrecting it. I have no special knowledge or interest in mites, germs, or disease - but would like to see the good work rewarded if appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You may want to shorten the amount of slots down to 7 or 8 in future when the page is reset. I merely put in the amount of hooks that were provided for in the reset queue.Nrswanson (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I started this article with good intentions and interest. I believed it was fair and properly referenced. (certainly not blatant and uncontroversial...) Anyhow if you want to remove it from DYK, I understand. BaomoVW (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have just restored it back to DYK and asked for someone to re-review it [1]. I understand that the guidelines about attribution, copyright, plagiarism, etc. are very convoluted and complicated, and it can be hard to know which guideline to apply. The rule of thumb with PD sources is that, even if there's no copyright issue per se, you still have to either use your own words or use quotation marks, otherwise it can be plagiarism (plagiarism is not an issue of copyright, but of intellectual property and more generally of writing quality). I will leave it up to other reviewers to decide if the revised version of the article is ok for DYK. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that FAC will be my first stop. But it's down the road somewhere. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Could you please give my nom for "Care" a once over? I think the sourcing issues have been addressed adequately and it's now at (almost) the very bottom of the queue. I'd hate for it to fall off without at least one fresh pair of eyes on it. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the bullet points at the top of that page, namely:

Threads will be archived automatically after a period of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and readd it to this page, preferably with a comment.

It shouldn't have been archived, because instead of having the common courtesy of returning to the thread and at least responding to my other query, you ignored it completely. I didn't flog a dead horse. I showed how deep the problematic edits had gone, and it's pathetic to think this type of stuff is allowed to go unpunished. You failed to read and understand the problem, which was quite obvious, and then didn't return when an even bigger problem arose.

You also told me to take it to a talk page, or to WP:DR, which is nothing more than a bunch of guidelines, and is not a place where I can take the problem to be solved. Maybe you linked me to the wrong page? Who knows. Regardless, the conversation continued on the other user's talk page anyway, but I guess you must've missed that. As for WP:VAND, his edits would at least fall under 'Sneaky vandalism' - Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, hiding vandalism... and so on.

82.17.236.83 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1976 Tangshan earthquake ; Chinese director plans film on 1976 quake Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the following DYKs did not happen to have received their article credit.

• Australia and the American Civil War 24 Feb
• Delyo 24 Feb
• Noel Park 24 Feb
• Ercole Manfredi 24 Feb
• Tarakjuk 24 Feb
• Thomas Cadell (publisher) 24 Feb
• The Causeway 24 Feb
• Xiuhtecuhtli 1 March
• Animo 1 March
• Treaty of Fort Wayne (1803) 1 March
• British Rail sandwich 1 March
• Busan-Geoje Fixed Link 1 March
• Peter of Canterbury 1 March
• The Linguists 1 March
• Drosera erythrorhiza 1 March
• Christ Church (Greenville, South Carolina) 1 March

Thanks for looking into it. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Added the credits. I assume just the person doing the credits for those particular updates missed these. Thanks for pointing this out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Must have been. I don't know what happen exactly, since technically I am not that familiar with the process. None were mine, I just happened to have noticed it. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...if this were an error by the bot I would inform nixeagle, but as far as I know those updates were posted by admins (since the bot has been down for a while), which means someone probably just forgot to do those. It looks like the user talk pages did get credited, so at least we don't need to worry about those. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article was created by User:Toonlet; why would you remove the COI tag? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it was heavily edited by User:Steven Walling and is now pretty much unrecognizable from the original version. I think he cleared up the COI issues, although he hasn't totally made the article acceptable (as you will see, I added {{notability}} and {{advert}} tags, which you seem to have reverted, probably by accident). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be left up for at least a couple of weeks yet. I'm sure there are plenty of people who contribute to DYK, but not all that regularly, who wouldn't know about the change yet. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjanak,

I do appreciate your initial look at the Article I was trying to publish. I do have the wirtten permission from Prof Brandin as I am one of his collegeus and a legal relative. Also, t article ha never been published (electronilally), only thorugh those hard-copy books I referenced using ISBN numbers ) So it is my original (graphical) work. To whom (e-mail address, please) I should send the permission form Prof Brendin to publish? Also, You have wrote a lot of criticisms the Self Nomination form about the general understanding of the concepts, etc. All these concepts are pretty new and unique and they are explained in the Introduction. I understand they are not easy. But the method itself is not for high-school grads too (please, no offense here!). It is very unique mathematical method, which can understood with at least some College degree or some Algebra/ Math. Analysis classes. The method itself can be standardized later on, but for now there is certain "threshold" by which it is understood. The method itself talking about that in the book. However, it created a lot of interest and popularity among students with Math major and group of people (mostly scientists) who do try to measure the Intellect more precisely (NOT the psychometric IQ method which I have referenced properly in the article. The only reason I could not provide a lot of wiki- references is because there are no much research on the subject in wiki. I will be happy to reference them, otherwise. Please, just type "intellect" and in the search window and you understand what I mean!!!)

How you suggest to reference something new and unique? How to link to this new article if these new concepts are new and revolutionary? What are the mechanisms to promote the article, if it seems to be prohibited by your Wiki Policy?

Could you help to point out how to work with the wiki's volunteers editors to improve it?

Thanks you!

Sincerely --Kreykh (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply, for your tolerance and objectiveness. My respect , again, for your educational background and proficiency. Y I understand that (for the average reader) it might be a bit difficult to grasp these concepts. Dr. Brandin and I (as his collegue) were trying to explain these new conspectus in the best possible way. Our only wish is that it in fact it will became more accepted and understood. I will do my best to search more references throughout the internet. . Do you still believe that the article can have some place in the Wikipedia, even it is not widely accepted yet? Can t be just the reference to his books? What we can do to "promote" these ideas? My little e disappointment is just because Wikipedia is free why can't I just publish what has the official book, for example, if I am not competing with anyone and introducing the new concept or methodology, etc?

Also, if I will re-edit the page how I will make sure that the current "Improvement Suggestion" header is removed. Should I go ahead and start the new page and move it again? Please, advise!

Tully. thanks again and any of your help!

--Kreykh (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent request to Permissions the approved by author e-mail to obtain the ticket number. Also, please, do not remove the article. I would like to modify it so it will be suitable. Also, the other idea is I have this notion of measurement the Intellect as the part of other bigger idea such as Intellect article. I am in contact with owner of the article asking him permission to post the references. --Kreykh (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. I am expanding Electoral district of Yeerongpilly, but I cannot figure out an interesting hook. I was wondering if you can have a look and see if you can work something out. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm...this is a tough one...do you know anything about why they changed the name? Yeerongpilly is an interesting placename. Or maybe we could do something about how the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre is there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really - electoral districts aren't something most people can be bothered writing about. There are many unique Aboriginal placenames in Australia (my favourite being Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara), but it isn't really anything remarkable. I'll keep parsing the census data and see if I can find any unique traits. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This might work:

... that the percentage of Sudanese-born persons living in the electoral district of Yeerongpilly is twelve times the national average?

Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash Forwardslash (talk • contribs)

Ooh, yeah, I like that one. I don't know what the national average is, so it might not actually be a lot, but it at least looks like a lot and is hooking! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a lot, but it's true. I'm nomming it now. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

as a member of the BOD for the HSDAA I have been given permission to use the information on our website www.havanasilkdog.com in our Wiki article. In fact, I've been tasked with continuing to add to our wiki article but find it difficult to understand the correct formating. Please quit redirecting our wiki page to a different breed. We have been recognized as a different breed by 4 different breed registries and are not considered the same breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bespeckled one (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was all said in the subject line, but I was wondering if the quotes in your hook about phonetics needed a tweak. Thanks. Interesting stuff. ^Law _shoot! 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean whether the commas should be inside or outside the quotes? Either way is fine with me. My personal habit is not to use "logical" quotes (even though they are more logical...I was just always taught not to), but they do seem to be more common on Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe it is a US v. Europe thing. Myself, I prefer quotes outside of punctuation - as is how I was taught. I just thought I would bring it to your attention - seeing as how we were dealing with phonetics, I felt punctuation deserved its own attention as well, lol. ^Law _shoot! 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a while since the article was given a DYK as I haven't been on online for a while, but I really should say a big thank you for making it possible as I was going to accept that it wouldn't make it. Donnie Park (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks for your help as well. Donnie Park (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yi Wu Suo You, which you created or substantially expanded. 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) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your DYK help with Knights of the Royal Oak. I see you've also been hard at DYK work as well! Cheers. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the documentation? I couldn't see any at the link you gave me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading the documentation, I just copied the code over. Hopefully it works, I guess you will hear about it soon enough if it doesn't! Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help on the artical.Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted it for Dyk.It has been improved as requested by other editors.Now what should i do.Submitted on March 7.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

I have done the copyediting and cleanup for you. Now you will just need to wait for a DYK reviewer to re-review the article (please don't contact the reviewers directly; they will review your article, you just might need to wait a couple days. Contacting people too often might just make them annoyed).

Personally, I still think the article is too short (at 1507 characters, after my copyediting, it's technically over the minimum limit, but barely), and often fails to provide enough context to the reader. For example, in the sentence "New checkpoints were created and manned by the Elite Force"—where were the checkpoints created, and what were they for? In "Additional Inspector-General of Police, Elite Police, who is under the Additional IGP, CID, Punjab"—I have no idea what those acronyms stand for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to know mistake with it so that i can further improve it.Your comments were very useful.I have improved all that.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Yes there was a good reason... If there is no space there than people include and post the category on the guys pages they love. And we get a lot of userrs in the template category, which needs to be found and restored. I did that myself a while ago.

Warrington (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		{{{1}}}

Now your page was in the category cookies and nobody have noticed that

Warrington (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but new people do not know what <noincluded> means, so they take everything, that is why I tried to put some space between them. There were about 9 users in the category Wikilove tempates. Warrington (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. And you can keep the cookie, I love you :).

Warrington (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It has been a pleasure to contribute to Wikipedia. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phonological rule, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I changed the picture on the right column details section was because your images are out of date. If you won't let someone update to more current images than why don't you do the updates yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnfog (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "|right" needs to be added in again, otherwise the pictures don't float. I'm pretty sure these two noms both used the template, but the picture came out wacky. T:DYK floats images by putting it in a floating div. Shubinator (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good point. I feel like I removed the "|right" a couple days ago, I wonder why this problem didn't show up until now; maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention.

Anyway, I removed |right because apparently we don't want it on T:DYK (it causes the hooks not to wrap properly, or something) and I figured this would save people the trouble of having to remember to remove it when they promote hooks. So maybe, to get the best of both worlds (keep promoters from having extra work, and keep images from looking terrible on T:TDYK) I can just use the same code that T:DYK and T:DYK/N use.

Here's the edit.... here's what it looks like in a nom (and 's what the nom looks like in the edit window)...do you think this is a good solution? The extra code might scare people, but oh well, they'll learn. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. It's not too much extra code, and I think most people don't look past the <!-- and ---> bracketing the hook. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I want to submit Street News that we worked on to DYK. Have a look if you want to change something first. Is "... that Street News in New York was the first modern street newspaper, sold by homeless to make a living" a good hook, is there some more exiting fact? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice. Thank you! I modified the hook a little (added "in New York"). I hope it's ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume the messages in your latest edit summaries in Leptotrombidium are aimed at me. That will comprehensively confuse the author. I am afraid if you want to discuss this with me you will have to come to my talk page as I have just taken both the article and DYK off my watchlist. SpinningSpark 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Don't sale yourself short having any DYK article recieve over 5,000 views is a great Honor, You should be proud of yourself. Congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, sometimes working on Wikipedia feels like you are a janitor, trying to clean things up and make them better. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you a Member, or have you thought about becoming a member of the Military History WikiProject your article Baibars was very interesting! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you addressed a problem with my DYK of List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment on March 14, I would like to inform you that I came up with alt. hooks. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied to your concern about the verifiability.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about that in the case of Megatokyo. The official title was MegaTokyo not Megatokyo, so I wanted to correct it. I assure you I wasn't aware of the 'move' feature, which I would have used otherwise.

Yours thankfully, Oxwil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxwil (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite familiar yet with the internal workings of Wikipedia, so I must apologise to make such a big fuss. I will be sure to remember to take your advice. Thanks for all your attention.

Oxwil (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus already, but you are invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites, to cover other officially designated historic sites, world-wide. :) doncram (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On 16 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Street News, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for nominating, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several things you can comment on at Talk:Hobo News if you have time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched Flickr for any free street paper images I could find and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Take a look at Commons:Category:Street papers and the subcategory Commons:Category:The Big Issue. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have my tricks. You can search commons for only free images, and then I searched for various synonyms for street newspaper, and names of individual papers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! :D cf38^talk 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shayang_outside.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. In fact Yitong has been actively defending (if that is the correct word) free speech and freedom of religion advocates in China for years. I am pulling together sources, including documentation of their U.N. Human Rights work from official U.N. documents. WP:Recentism is one thing, but would you agree we can lose the orphan tag?--Brad Patrick (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the notability tag can't be removed unless enough pages link to it. I know I removed a link from the Hu Jia page, but now that I look at it, a link could probably be included there, just not the way you presented it the first time (all in its own paragraph)—it needs to be better integrated into the text. If you can find a few other pages after that and also reasonably get them to link to Yitong Law Firm, then the tag can be removed.

As for recentism, I trust you that the firm is notable, but you still need to demonstrate that with major coverage in reliable, independent sources; just saying so at my talk page is, unfortunately, not enough. From what I can see, all but one of the sources in the current article are about the February shutdown, and the only one that is not (the Chinese Christian Human Rights Advocates) is really only a passing mention (it's not even about the law firm, but is about a guy). Likewise, the UN report you linked at the talk page also appears to be only a passing mention. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For simple syntax trees (such as the ones in Reduced relative clause), phpSyntaxTree can be used for generation. In that article's case, the following codes will generate the trees:

1) [S[N The florist][VP [V sent] [N the flowers]]]
2) [S[N The florist][VP [V sent] [N the flowers]]][??? was]
3) [S[NP[N The florist][Rel. [V sent] [N the flowers]]][V was]]

Circeus (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Is there a way to embed that code in the article, or do I have to save the image generated from the phpsyntaxtree and then upload it as a file? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the images do have to be saved separately, though it would beinteresting to make a request for a plugin introducing it into MediaWiki. Circeus (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to create a DYK i didn't know you have to be the person to have to edit the article,I was just trying to make some interesting ones can you please let me know what i need to do ?

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help,it really appricate you taking your time out to help explain it to me.

Cheers Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the other Dyk that i made were actually good and should have been used.In my opinion can't we just change it to what you told be?

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure i think like u said i used the wrong template i just wanted to nominate the article and give credit to the author.Here are the diff's on the dyk page and the article links Diff,Article Saint Patrick's Day the next article and diff are here Diff 2 ,and the article Coming_out

Thanks ,

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

100px Hey, I see it's being used in Hobo News. Looks great. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion! I ended up not using it in Street newspaper because I figured this one publication wasn't really major enough...if it turns out to be out of copyright we could consider using it, but if it's fair-use it probably wouldn't be worth it. It looks good in Hobo News, though! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		For your tireless work in reviewing DYK hooks and creating/improving DYK templates, and for your many other helpful contributions to the running of DYK, I hereby award you the coveted DYK contributors award. Congrats! Gatoclass (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

'Bout time you got one of these. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gatoclass! It's a pleasure working with all of you. The DYK project motivates a lot of my mainspace work, and DYK is the place where I learned about the WP community and process; it's definitely a valuable project to keep afloat. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny! - --Boston (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that good at chess, as you can see Pgdashel (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was his move ,I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for the advice.Pgdashel (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the WikiBirthday message! It has been pleasure being here on Wikipedia for two years already! Wow, today is the day. (even though it's a bit late on Wikipedia time zone, but in my area, it's still March 19, which is my WikiBirthday). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx for repairing my mistake. I created 242 but I guess I failed to save it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a fancy awards template put together but since I now know you do all that you do at Wikipedia "for the chicks" I figured that this was the least I could do. Enjoy! - Dravecky (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Tanna_japonensis, but just wanted to add a personal thanks here. --  Chzz  ►  19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; glad I could help. I'm jealous; I've always wanted to have a sound DYK... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		For your anti-vandalism work, and for your exceptionally well received Contributions.South Bay (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I do love cookies...they go very well with contributions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You said that Double's article needs to be expanded 5x not 3x. I just want to know how would I know if it was expanded 5x? Because I'm planning on sending it back for to the DYK page after I'm positive I've expanded it by how much it is need. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 04:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, which you can install in your monobook.js (follow that link for instructions how); it adds a button to your toolbox, on the left-hand side, to automatically count prose in an article, ignoring wikiformatting, headers, references, infoboxes, bulleted lists, etc.

By the way, I noticed your work on Kumi Koda...good job! We need all the people we can get working on Asian artists! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the script and thanks for your compliment on Koda. I know we do need more people working on Asian artists articles. I'm currently doing what I can you know? I have a project list on my user page and it's just full with Asian artists. I just sent TVXQ, NEWS, and Shinee to the GA nomination process, hopefully they'll pass. Well I know think TVXQ will pass because there is a lot of information on the page. Anyway... lol. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I don't really know anything about Japanese music and pop culture (I have a grand total of three Japanese songs on my computer, and two are actually by Chinese singers—Wang Lee-hom and Faye Wong), but I'm always happy to do a copyedit or review or whatever, whenever you have an article you're preparing to nominate for something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep you in mind whenever I need either of those. You know actually the history section in the NEWS could use a copy edit. So if you want you can do that I guess. Just thought I'd take you up on the offer now. lol. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done and left some comments at the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll leave my replies at the article. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the changes you suggested.Nrswanson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in James Eads How, as he was at least indirectly involved with the Hobo News. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know; check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Eads_How&action=history ;). Thanks for the tip, though! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide some tips here on improving context it would be greatly appreciated. -Pecoc (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep on reverting my enlargement of the G-string illustration? I think a larger picture better demonstrates the nature of the subject matter? You can't censor images just because you find them to be distasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.3.120 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not censorship, there are manual of style rules saying that images should not have forced sizes. Also, your repeatedly making the image big (as large as 900px is simply disruptive, so don't try to fool people by acting like you're trying to "help demonstrate the nature of the subject matter". You're fooling around, and if you continue you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reduced relative clause, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Egads, a grammar hook. We don't see many of them! Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvard Girl, which you created or substantially expanded. 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) 09:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On 26 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hobo News, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On 26 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Brotherhood Welfare Association, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Real Change, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Honor_Marie.jpeg can be used under creative common's licencce. UnholyFreezz (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't; it's a non-free magazine cover. Unless you provide some evidence that this magazine released all of its work under Creative Commons (and you have provided no such evidence), the image cannot be used on Commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom of the page where you took the image from ( http://www.theinsider.com/news/1063424_The_First_Photo_of_Honor_Marie_Warren ) says:

Copyright © 2008 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

All Rights Reserved means it is not creative commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

KK, But why do you want to delete wouldn't it have been better to correct it (to another licence such as like fair use) instead of deleting? UnholyFreezz (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is only for free images. Fair use media are not acceptable on Wikimedia commons. And they are only acceptable on Wikipedia if you provide a strong rationale for them (ie, if you use them in one article and prove that they are making a major contribution to helping the reader understand that article). Basically, fair use is only for when an image is important in an article; since there are no articles on Wikimedia Commons, fair use does not exist on Wikimedia Commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback has really helped me clarify what I am trying to do on the Wiki and on my howOLDisit web site. I have posted replies to the issues you raised and some questions about the Wiki. I would greatly appreciate your responses.Vidshow (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Eads How, which you created or substantially expanded. 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) 09:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for wishing me a happy wikibirthday yesterday. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

do you watch me or something?RCNARANJA 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

okay so you can see my edits. everyone can, but you're the only one looking at every single one i do. I'm asking why. RCNARANJA 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On 30 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Homeless Grapevine, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't a bot use to do this? Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right; GimmeBot is still active. I just get antsy sometimes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Really appreciate your gift. I'd give you some of my cake but I don't know photoshop. Thanks for making me feel better. I guess I needed a long wikibreak to cool off. (PS sorry for replying late I tried to repley ASAP really). I should really, really stay away from controversial articles. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo Spinach Monster (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to AfD. I have also started a discussion here. I really think it is time that the jocks get their act together, now that the Pokemon people have started cleaning up all their articles :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice you made a change to a user subpage. I think those changes are meant for the article Code mixing. Cnilep (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I saw this in your userspace and thought it was a draft you were preparing; I didn't realize it was already in the mainspace. I have now redirected the user subpage to the mainspace article; is that ok? Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

just because you're british doesn't mean you can't appreciate someone else's opinion--RCNARANJA 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not British. And you are a troll. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

=]--RCNARANJA 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

are you upset bc our names are similar??--RCNARANJA 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

define "constructive", rcangagaj!

i think my posts are constructive!

and it says on your page LEAVE ME A NEW MESSAGE and i always sign so i don't understand what the issue is

why cant we talk on a talk page?

you say we cant in articles...

--RCNARANJA 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Constructive" means having to do with building the encyclopedia, not just chatting. If all you're here for is to keep bothering me because you don't like me, you're not doing anything constructive. I am not interested in chatting with you, and if you don't have an article issue to discuss you have no more reason to post here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty sure ejectives don't occur in all Caucasian languages? Please name one. — N-true (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a large family with a lot of different varieties; do you have a source saying they all have ejectives? And besides, whether or not they all do, it's not really that important whether the article says "all" or "many"; the point it's making is still the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right, but I have never came across a Caucasian language (of any family) that has no ejectives, and I had at least a look at each of them. But you're right, "many" includes "all" somehow. — N-true (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i'd just be wary about saying "all" without some very good evidence. For nearly every language "universal" I can think of, people have eventually come across languages that break it...they've even found languages that (supposedly) don't have vowels (don't ask me how that works, but yeah, that's what they say). Add on top of that the amount of disagreement over how language families are divided up, what is and isn't included in the Caucasian family, and then general issue of how many "languages" there "are" and what constitutes a separate language, and all gets pretty hard to support without really robust sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented back on your question in regards to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tassedethe#Neutral RFA,I think im gonna wiki break for a while and work on my personal life.

Take care,

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine, really, but since they're news stories (albeit off the web), "cite news" seems to edge out "cite web". - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On 5 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pocholo Ramirez, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your choice! Let me know when you've made your decision. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Absolutely no problem. Where's the adventure? :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nor would you, I imagine. ;) ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your Happy Wiki-Birthday wishes! Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I received the following note: "Apparently, you accidentally used a non-free image instead of the icons listed on the page which caused Cydebot to insert a whole bunch of rationale templates."

I am confused by this as I had been working on the DYKs for three hours and had not noticed my mistake, nor had the others reviewing the DYKs at the time. Further, if you go page to the previous edit [2], you will see that all the correct symbols were there before User:Cydebot made the one edit, and that Cydebot, in that one edit, removed pictures next to the entries and inserted that symbol.

Is there something I did to trigger this edit on the part of Cydebot? I am confused about my role in this and how I can avoid it in the future. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

answered at Mattisse's talk page rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[3] changes the section header so {{DYKproblem}} doesn't make a working section link. I guess it can also cause problems for section links in other places. Maybe it would be better to keep a clean section header. Other things might be added below the header like in {{Afd2}}. I'm not a template coder. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, I forgot about DYKproblem. I have been working on a possible update to {{NewDYKnomination}} which would put the history link below the section header, like in AfDs, so that might be the best solution. Thanks for the suggestion, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For now, I have just temporarily fixed {{DYKproblem}} to keep the section headers working until I figure out a better long-term solution. The main problem currently is figuring out how we would display the (history) link below the header in cases where there are multiple articles in the same nomination. In a regular nomination, something like

(history)

• ... that......?

would not be a problem. The problem comes up when we get ones like:

(history) (history)

• ... that......?

which is pretty ugly. One option would be to display the article name within the link:

(Article1 history), (Article2 history)

• ... that.......?

But I can't get the formatting for that to work yet. I have been fiddling around, and there seems to be some problems with displaying that many parser functions within a URL. I will keep working on it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The history links are showing up bigger than they used to. Is this intentional? Also, could you take a look at the image at the Evan Vaughan nom? It's a shield, but according to the nominator it's an artist's recreation...I'm split. Shubinator (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your edit summary...I liked the history smaller. Shubinator (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've had some time to look at it, I agree; I've put it back the way it was, with <small><small>. I just don't like having all that markup in the edit window. I had assumed that because I already had <span class="plainlinks"> I could just add something in there (like style="small" or who knows what), which would save space, but I can't find anything that works. (As you can tell, I'm not very good with html.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got it! There is a CSS way to make smaller text: Hello (see the source)

You can change the percentage to whatever you want (it's at 80% now), and as you mentioned it works in the span tag you already have. I'm not amazing with html either, but the internet is a great resource. By the way, thanks for the comment on the nom page. Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a lot better. I've tried it at 75%; let's see how it looks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is good to hear that you have managed to secure permission for this photo; since you are in contact with its author, might it be possible for him or her to upload a larger size image than this thumbnail? Jappalang (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate they cannot release a larger sized photo. The value of this picture to the article is a good question. I have seen several articles in which the authors try to break up the monotony of text by inserting free images, several of which I think do not truly contribute value. The answer I have often gotten in these situations is "they are free". Unless such additions prove to be a detriment (overflooding the article with images, mass of editors up in arms over the relevance, etc), such issues with "free images" are often overlooked. I think that Street newspaper presently has a bunch of photos of various vendors and the papers they sell. I am not certain how one image of Ed McLain is going to further add to that, but that is not worthy to make a challenge of. At least the paper was mentioned in the article, but that leads to the slippery slope where editors insert a photo of their favorite vendor and paper just because it was mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Rjanag. You've had a name change - I didn't know. ;) Well, remember that disastrous article you reviewed a while back? Well, Pride & Joy (comics) has changed. If it's not too much trouble, I'd love your opinion. I'm currently waiting on another good article review. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey A, sorry if I caused any confusion. Actually, I have been noticing all the work you and a couple other editors have put in to the article (I never took it off my watchlist after the first GA review), and it does look like it's come a long way in the past couple months! I haven't looked super-closely, but from what I can tell all the concerns I had at the first review have been addressed and this will probably be pretty much a shoe-in for GA once someone responds to the current nomination. Anyway, I'm about to run, but I will try to find some time later to look through it more closely and see if I have any minor suggestions. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, it's all good. Now I get what you meant; looking back now, the article was horrendous. Took me a while to hunt for more detailed information. Thanks for your help, Rjanag - and take your time, no rush. Your opinion's all that matters. Thanks again, -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, perhaps I am asking too much for this image but my stance is unchanged at this time.

• The section "Coverage" talks about the range of topics and issues street newspapers focus on. As I said before, telling people "poverty, homelessless, and such are the issues covered" sort of describes the imagery adequately, i.e. without seeing the paper, readers already think, "okay, so it prints such stuff".
• To justify the use of the front page of a current newspaper, the text should talk about how the paper presents these news articles. What is the format these papers used to arrange the articles on the front page? Why is such a layout used? Are the front page photos specifically selected to evoke a certain kind of emotion? How about the way the fonts are used? Perhaps, something resourced from this or its like. The image is to clarify to readers the text, e.g. (simplistic example) "text: it shows subjects in controversial poses, designed to elicit compassion" is accompanied by an "image: front page with a homeless man on the corner, asking for alms as pedestrians non-chalantly walk by (photo shows and focus on the expressions of the subjects)", reader goes "ahh... look at the faces of the lot... oh, so this is how the paper operates to tweak the feeling of the readers".

Basically, my issue with the cover of Spare Change News is that the article states nothing about what the layout of a street newspaper like Spare Change News is about or has what sort of effects; instead the image is used to show the contents, which words can perfectly describe. Commentary/criticisms for fair use images must be in main article text to qualify for significance. Captions lack sufficient weightage. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed the discussion as "keep". There really was no other option since only you and the prodder were arguing "delete". However, I updated the closing statement with a note about the discussion to modify WP:ATHLETE. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I did see that; thank you for your consideration of the matter and your thoughtful closing statement. I am still a bit disappointed that most people ignored my actual question and just parroted WP:ATHLETE back at me, but at least not everyone did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I unfortunately might have been one of them. As a "mild inclusionist" it personally doesn't bother me to have a zillion articles on "Pokemon", (as the prodder compared this article to) minor fictional characters, or video game weapons. However, many of the articles covered under WP:ATHLETE are BLPs. (Jim Schelle is not since he died in 1990) Therefore, the question of whether or not appearing in one pro game warrants an article should be asked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mind if people disagree with me on whether we should have the article, as long as they (like you have) actually give a reason why they think so. Since I was specifically questioning whether or not we should follow WP:ATHLETE in this case, I got annoyed that people were totally avoiding the actual question and just pretending that I nominated it the article for different reasons than I actually did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW I contributed my 2 cents to the WP:ATHLETE thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, most major universities have a separate article on Greek life. When I get some free time, I plan on expanding the article significantly. Thanks for your comment, you were the first person to write on my talk page. AF3 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A great suggestion; we'll need to remove the link from the GT Navbox, but other than that, I am fine with that plan. I've downloaded the article locally to work on it, so if you want to recommend it for deletion, that's fine. Thanks!

AF3 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In what is is a 360 degree view of a place not appropriate for an wikipedia? If I'm interested in a place enough to look it up in wikipedia, you think I might want to know what it looks like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharriso (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2009

Because you appear to be trying to promote your website. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting other websites; sites should only be added to an article if they benefit not Wikipedia, not if Wikipedia benefits them. If you believe your links are beneficial, please discuss them at the talk pages of the relevant articles (for example, Talk:Mount Huang) to solicit more input from other editors—that way you can get a second opinion other than mine.

And, by the way, I wish you had gotten in touch with me after my first warning, rather than having waited until my third.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be trying to promote my website? I'm not posting links in inappropriate place. I'm only posting links of specific place on the articles about those places. I think people that visit these articles would want to see a panoramic view of the place the article is talking about. Is it cool then if I go delete all the pictures on Wikipedia that come from flikr?

Wikipedia doesn't exist for its own interest, its a vehicle for knowledge. And I don't have to ask permission to edit articles, thats the God Damn point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharriso (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need to ask for permission to edit articles, but Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion, and when there is disagreement then we take it to a talk page to work out a reasonable solution for everyone. I suggested that you go to a talk page because a) that will help us find a solution, and b) that way you can find opinions from people other than me, since I know my opinion is not the one that you would like to hear.

The fact of the matter is, I did not find your links to be very useful to improving a reader's understanding of topics like Mount Huang, University of Kansas, etc. These articles are already well-illustrated, and have links to entire galleries of images on Wikimedia Commons, so I don't believe your links were necessary. Again, if you disagree, you are welcome to seek other editors for more input. But please remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you've no objections, can I tag the Cheng character entry at GL/I as resolved? --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections, and have tagged it. My only outstanding question is what to do with the old image. Is there any di rationale for images that have been superseded but not by an exact copy...or should I just FfD it? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FFD has this: "Examples of what you may request here: Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version." It depends on the file, but in this case I can't see any use on wiki for the original file with such low resolution and there are now two replacements, I'd say FfD is appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, also found this at commons which may be of interest. Commons Deletion Policy/Redundant.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, I pointed out the sentence from the prestige article I used as the hook on the DYK page. James McBride (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit to the intro, as per your suggestion. Thanks for your help! I had sort of given up on the article getting reviewed. Since no one had looked at it for a week, I figured the hook was not exciting enough. James McBride (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Xinfang Arilang ^talk 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Wild Swans? I think there are a couple anecdotes there about 张's parents petitioning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy big 5, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to do more running offline. How about you? I hope you're staying fit and having fun. Sorry about the misspelling. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just got back from a run and a rousting match of badminton! (and a shower.) It's good to get away from WP sometimes. No worries about the misspelling, I can't spell my own name half the time!

Best of luck on your RfA, I'll be looking forward to seeing what happens there (especially your answer to question 5, which I think is going to be very important)! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you want me to prove that I have the copyright to the picture that I added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaeljojo (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding file: karen perfume launch.jpg. You are right, I mistakingly named the picture this way but did not know how to change it so I uploaded it again, this time with the correct title. yes, this file can be deleted (I cannot delete it myself, can I?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaeljojo (talk • contribs) 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had File:karen perfume launch.jpg deleted at your request. As for the other one, File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg, what you need to do is to add source information. The easiest way to do this is to paste in the following template and fill in as much as you can:

{{Information
| Description = [[Karen Mok]] at the 2009 [[Hong Kong International Film Festival]]
| Source = 
| Date = 17:41, 22 March 2009 
| Author = [[User:Jaeljojo]]
| Permission = {{GDFL}}{{cc-by-3.0}}
}}

I have taken the liberty of guessing some of the information for you; make sure you check to see this is accurate, and only post this information on the image page if it is actually true and this really is your picture. To be honest, I am not totally sure whether it is, since in the past you have uploaded someone else's image and claimed it as your own...but since the camera metadata is present on this image, I am more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, if you don't add the information within a couple days, the image will be deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. It is apparently easy to get a bad reputation in this environment (not entirely intuituve though how to upload picture correctly) so thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I have added the source as detailed as I could. Please have a look and tell me whether it makes sense. If so, I would like to upload it to the article.

jaeljojo Jaeljojo (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks ok now. I have added it back into the article, but for now I'm keeping the lead/main image like it was before, and adding this one lower, since I don't see any strong reason to replace it yet, and I think the current lead image looks a bit more natural. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't actually know much about photography. My work is almost exclusively on engravings, lithographs, and the like, most of which I scan myself. You'd want a photographer for that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, Metadata often isn't enough, as that might be copied as well. This editor has uploaded this image before File:Karen perfume launch.jpeg, claiming it was taken in Oct. 2008 (no metadata on that upload). So, on that the basic backstory of the image has changed (2008? 2009? Perfume launch? film festival?) A good place to do a quick search is images.google.com - a quick search there found this - [4] which shows her in the same dress at HKIFF in 2009, so that confirms the 2nd. I didn't see this image in the first couple of pages of search results. However, it was uploaded without any information (such as you stated above) or without a license; so it's a good idea to let the uploader prove his claims while at the same time assuming some level goodwill in that licensing etc. can be confusing for a new uploader. Skier Dude (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's the least I could do. Don't sweat it. I'll be quite honest though, I'm not actually the best with copyediting, but I can give it a shot. As for it not interesting me, don't fear. I managed to push an article I hated to GA standards a short time ago. -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a punctuation geek, so I noticed a lot of unneeded comma usage. I've done some minor fixes (see edit summary) - there are some other areas I am rather worried about.

• Who was her family "besieged with thousands of phone calls" from? I'm guessing it's from friends in China, because somewhere below the paragraph, it states she was a celebrity in China - something that took me by surprise, since it hadn't been mentioned above.
  • The source isn't very specific, but I imagine it was calls from both friends and random fans (anyone who had read the local paper). As for her celebrity status, the intro states "made her a household name" or something like that, but maybe I could make it a bit clearer. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Great work on the 'description' section, seems really interesting. I am, however, unsure of the line "According to Liu, her parents had plans early on to write about their parenting methods and relied on Liu's perceived success in gaining entrance to Harvard to establish themselves as "experts" in order to publish their book.[2]", because that sentence (to me, at least) describes a lot of things happening at once - parenting methods, Harvard entrence/success, expert writers.
  • Moved it around a bit, to try to shift the emphasis. Does this look any better? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "The success of this and similar books (another bestseller in 2001 and 2002 was Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad) in mainland China has been said to reflect a "national obsession" among Chinese parents to get their children (many of whom, because of the one-child policy, are only children) into top-ranking American schools." I'm not sure of this, seeing as I haven't read the book or live in China, but is it something crucial to include that one-child policy note? I might be a bit biased right now, so I'm not sure.
  • Definitely not necessary; I had the same thought myself, but kept forgetting to do anything about it. I'll remove it now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read through comments from the review, and I'm not I satisfied the articles' needs - I've cleaned up some little fixes, but you might like to take a quick run through when you get the chance. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this! I have left some replies above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem, really. The article was actually intriguing once I read through it, which is great. As for the edits, I can (now) understand the emphasis of that sentence (above), so great. I'm not entirely sure if there's more to do; I merely fixed the errors I saw and stuff that didn't work well. Great work on the article, though - again, it's pretty interesting. -- A ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For your outstanding contribution to WP:DYK in creating various topics especially China related articles and keeping the system running, Rjanag, you are hereby awarded with the 25 DYK Medal. We look forward to many more DYKs from you. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Caspian blue 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

!! But I don't think I've actually written 25 yet! Do I have to give it back? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got 30 DYK badges including nominations, check out your archives. :) --Caspian blue 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hot damn. That's right, I haven't been counting noms, so I lost track of those. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look Talk:Main_Page#Changing pic for lead hook here and swap a picture? Thanks Sasata (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I finished the first pass of the quick stuff, Image and Stability review, so I'd appreciate your comments at Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)/GA2 about the article's present status, as I am about to do the main part of the GA review itself. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It wouldn't be where it is had it not been for your original review, remember? Thanks for also pitching in with the current review - glad this article can shine now :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rank: I noticed that your infobox says you speak Chinese, so I was wonder if you could tell me if this (內容物：1片裝) has anything to with the albums rank. Here the website if you want to view the whole page.

GAN: If you have the time could you please review TVXQ? ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not totally sure, but I don't think 內容物：1片裝 is a rank. I　think it's something along the lines of "Product contents: 1 disc". (I've never seen the character 裝 (simplified version 装) used like that, but that's what the context suggests.)

Okay thanks.

For TVXQ, do you mean an official GAN review, or a copyedit before the review? In either case, I may not be able to do anything until the weekend, because I have a pretty crazy night coming up tonight and probably also tomorrow...but I will try to take a look. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean for the official GA review. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just came to ask for yet another favor :p. Can you do a copy edit of List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)? You can do this whenever you have the time no rush. Also TVXQ is now a GA article. :) ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, already? And I was just starting to think I would have time this evening to review it! Looks like CarpetCrawler beat me to it...

Anyway, I would be happy to copyedit the list article; it looks pretty short, and has purty pictures. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was very quick, I'm glad it passed next step to them and Kumi Koda to a FA. Thanks for starting the ce. I want to promote the article to a FL article. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Two questions (since I can't read Japanese to look into these things myself):

• Amuro became the first solo female artist in 28 years to have a single at number one for so long; the record was previously held by Saki Kubota (久保田早紀 ,Kubota Saki?) in 1980 – I can't tell what you mean, did Amuro break Kubota's record, or does Kubota still hold the record and Amuro is second? In either case, do you know what Kubota's record was? It would be nice to mention.

Yeah Kubota still holds the record and Namie is second. Kubota holds the record for seven consecutive weeks.

• Rock singer Yui's b-side album, My Short Stories, debuted atop the charts, making her the second female artist after Seiko Matsuda to do so – but the previous paragraph says that BoA's album also debuted at number one. Is there a difference that I'm not understanding? Also, when you say "the second female artist to do so," do you mean second in 2008 or second ever?

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference is BoA is the second artist to have six consecutive number-one studio albums, after Ayumi Hamasaki and Yui is the second artist after Seiko Matsuda to have her b-side album debut at number-one. By "the second female artist to do so," I mean ever.

Also, about Exile's album... does the Japanese source at the end of the paragraph mention how the album was actually released in 2007, or is that your own addition? If it's in the source, it might make for a good DYK hook (something along the lines of "... that the best-selling Japanese music album in 2008 was actually released in 2007?", although I dunno if that is unusual or not in the music industry). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese source doesn't say it was released in 2007, but if you click on "EXILE LOVE" on the source it does show the album was released in December of 2007. It'll be easy for me to find a next source saying that it was released in 2007 if you need to to find one.

In any case, I've nominated it for now, with a tenative hook, here. If it turns out that stuff isn't in the source, I can strike the first hook and go with an alternate one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of sourced there. Thanks for nominating it.

I want to apologize for not making my writing clear. That's why I requested a copy edit, to me it makes perfect sense but to others I'm not all that sure. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand, and I have the same problem—when I already know and understand what I'm trying to say, I can't tell which parts are awkward or confusing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm not alone. :) About the DYK, the info about Mariya Takeuchi is somewhat incorrect. She is the first artist over 50 years old to have a album that stayed at the number-one position for three consecutive weeks. Sorry about the confusion. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a second hook? (...that Perfume is only the second technopop group in 25 years to have a number-one album in Japan?) Reading it makes me think this would be better for either the album's page. I'll let you decide. I'm making your talk look like a mess. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks good too, feel free to add it to the nomination. No worries about the talk; a messy talk page means we're getting work done ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I added it. I might be adding more to lead in the near future so keep an eye on the article for a bit longer, just in case I'll need you to copy edit again. In your opinion do you think that the article is anywhere near ready to become FL article? ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with FLs. This list looks great to me, but some other people might be able to give more input; I think Sepiroth BCR does a lot of list work. If you snoop through T:TDYK you will usually be able to find several list articles by the people who are experienced with lists, and you could try asking them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll go ask him what he thinks about the article and I do some snooping at DYK too. Again thanks! ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,Rjanag,it's Easter,and I still need help with that article!All of the stuff warning me about deletion is starting to bug me!Bryceman99 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

... in this article today in the New York Times. Shubinator (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

im not vandalizing articles, i cleaned up that section. there is no need to have that notice there. Justme89 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not clean it up; here is the link. You removed the tag without having made any changes whatsoever to the section. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So i made a little mistake. big deal, sue me. that notice is from 2007. it needs to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justme89 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 April 2009

No need to be rude; I wasn't making a big deal, I was just giving you a warning asking you not to do it again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a anniversary, but I will take a birthday as well. Thanks again! ClonedPickle 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please trust User:Awadewit's editing. She will save the article, as it is borderline. You are fortunate she is doing that. I would like to see it pass and her copy edit will make it happen. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do, and I am very grateful for her help (just waiting for her to finish before I bother her with a thank-you note). Of the two edits I've made while she's copyediting, one is a different section (just something I noticed that I should have fixed long ago, nothing to do with her editing) and the other is just a minor tweak to one of her rewordings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Glad you feel that way. I know that, from her perspective, it is very disorienting to have the article's editor make changes while doing a copy edit. Anyway, I think she will support once she goes through it. It is an interesting article on a topic previously ignored! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You have two "leaning toward support"! The bullet point issue Moni3 asked about refers to the directive in MoS to avoid bullet points if at all possible (paraphrased). I tried to remove them for that reason but you returned them. If you can reword them out of bullet points, that would be good. I am routing for this article! —Mattisse (Talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would nomination List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan) to became a featured list article ruin the DYK nomination for the article? Also I added on under April 13 for List of number-one albums of 2007 (Japan). *wink wink* ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not; unlike FAC/FLC and PR, DYKs are allowed to have concurrent nominations elsewhere. (TonytheTiger once nominated an article for DYK and GA at the same time, and it actually got GA before getting DYK! That's very rare, but possible.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cools. Thanks for letting me know. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey I have another favor to ask of you. Can you copy edit Mamoru Miyano, please? Sorry must be annoying that I keep asking you to copy edit an article. Also NEWS and Shinee have become Good Articles! I feel so proud that I'm improving the Asian articles which all have been neglected or messed up by the stans. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 06:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have spent a lot of time editing the intro, can you please explain why you removed all of it. I have reinserted some previous materials because I think they are valid and sourced - no reason to remove them. Put citation needed if you have an issue with them. If you have any issues with anything I have edited, please let me know, but as a whole, what I have edited is true, and modelled after the Japan article. Thanks. 86.138.60.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

The statement that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world", sourced to a museum brochure, has been challenged repeatedly at the talk page and was removed through consensus. There was also consensus to cleanup the wording about the Miracle on the Han River to keep it neutral. In your edits you have restored much of the content that was cleaned up in the past. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry abou that and thanks for the explanation. Also thanks for the cleanup, very much appreciated. It looks much better now.86.138.60.93 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you think that I am a POVnatinalist as you mentioned in Caspianblue's talk page. Don't worry, I am not Korean or anything but I just wanted to highlight some of the important features and since I don't know much about it (but very interested indeed), I modelled it after Japan, which is a similar country. I hope this clears up some confusions. Thanks. 86.138.60.93 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Thank you for the birthday wishes. I wasn't aware that it had been three years, so Quadell was indeed very fast. How time flies around here when you're having fun. Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to sound like we're in an echo chamber, but... thanks from me too! I actually know the date I registered... I even have a userbox that shows it... but it hadn't crossed my mind lately. Thanks for the reminder and for the fun message. :) -- edi(talk) 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think if I made my username harder to spell and remember, it would help cut down on the abusive reports being made against me? Seriously. Let me know what you think. Can I have a user name that's a bunch of indecipherable signs? I know they might catch on after a while, but it just might slow some of the <insert descriptive term here> down. :) Maybe these "editors" wouldn't be able to find my talk page all together? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha...I wouldn't recommend it, but the best trick might be to choose letters that look like other letters. Like, ` instead of ', stuff like that. Two of the hardest usernames for me to remember are User:Nlu and User:Cbl62 because I can never remember if those darn things are ones or lowercase Ls.

As for the recent report, I admit I didn't follow the discussion too closely, but my impression is similar to Bongomatic's: yeah, maybe it wasn't a good idea to edit other people's comments, but it wasn't a blatant policy violation or anything, it was just a minor inconvenience, and most of the people who posted seem to have way overreacted. I'm not sure where things are now, but that's at least how it appeared at the beginning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh and thanks for your talk page comment . I was going to ask you to post one so it was absolutely incontrovertably 100% crystal clear that I was joking around. There are those who would use any excuse to attack me if you can believe it. I just hope the children and small animals are kept safe... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you told me what the special characters are but I forget. What language is this and what is the significance if you don't mind my asking? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The special characters ʨ and ɢ are IPA characters; the first represents a palatal affricate (sounds a bit like "j") and the second a uvular stop (close to "g" or "k"). The name itself is a word in Northern Monguor; specifically, it's the Monguor name for Beijing, which has no special significance other than the fact that i like it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

you have mail---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Featured Article! You have done a great job on it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! I am very happy to see this article as FA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! You both have also been very helpful in getting this and related articles up to speed. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and I'm really glad to hear that you got the article up to FA status! But I wouldn't take a {{User Featured Article|Street newspaper}} unless I did the writing myself. You could always give me a Barnstar instead if you felt so inclined, that I'd take. lol ;) Congrats again, I love to see that this one made FA. Well deserved. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On 19 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel so excited, I've created my first AfD ever! :P See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil (Surname). I feel like a man now! Just felt like letting you know. (I've never done one before, it took me awhile to do it, made plenty of mistakes. found some hoax that this kiddo made.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello there,

thanks for the clean-up. You may have been overcautious this time, though, for you combined two references - different sources by the same author - in the "Notable English-language translations" section into one. That is misleading, you should restore it to the following format:

• 4 and 5a, b.

I would have done it myself if only I knew how! Thanks. 雷多聞 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty is in excellent shape; now comes the hard part of improving the other five articles! Yikes! I should go into semi-retirement after this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

that really is an alternate name for the DISORDER!!! IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT GO SPEAK WITH A SPECIALIST!! STOP HINDORING THE FREEDOM OF KNOWLEDGE!! OR IM REPORTING YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburr1985 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 April 2009

Making jokes like this on Wikipedia wastes everyone's time, is not funny, and is rude to whomever in the real world you're making fun of. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a (albeit very minor) error in Template:NewDYKnom. I thought about fixing it myself, then couldn't decipher the code :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that...i am slowly working on trying to clean up the code to make it more legible to other people, in case I suddenly die or anything.

Anyway, what is the error? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries there; I can only read the simplest codes.

Wow, sorry: I meant to leave a link to this in my first message. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the top of the Union County Light Rail article for example. The template transubstitution appears not to have worked as I would expect you to have intended. 67.86.75.57 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article P600 (neuroscience), which you created or substantially expanded. 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 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Street newspaper - I've done some work on the topic of journalism on this project so I really appreciate your work on this article to FA. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any quality control at DYK? I am becoming disillusioned. The editor of the endless articles from the Book of Tang has a DYK several times a week and his articles don't pass WP:V and WP:RS. Are there no standards at DYK? The people who promote the hooks seem not to have good judgment. It is discouraging. Probably time for me to move on. I was hoping that things had improved from the bad judgment that was so common there not too long ago. But I don't see that happening. Maybe I should find some book or list and churn out endless hooks, as seems to be the practice of so many. The Book of Tang guy has several years worth of hooks left. And his articles are a mess. No one goes back and cleans them up. I think DYK encourages the wrong behavior. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to quality control most of what I review (although I haven't been reviewing much for the past month or so), but there are a couple "problem editors" whom I just avoid. Nlu has been around for a while and the sources in his hooks are questioned repeatedly, to the point that I've gotten tired of dealing with; there have been threads at WT:DYK and WT:RS discussing him and I don't think any of them have ever reached a consensus, and I don't have the energy or interest to re-hash all of it over and over again, so I just avoid his hooks (which generally means someone with lower standards will eventually come along and let them through). Another problem editor is Billy Hathorn, who repeatedly nominates articles about television shows or television actors based almost entirely on IMDB and other non-reliable sources, often with improper ref formatting and no real content (the articles are often just lists of stuff, in prose format). He's getting better and has been slowly starting to use some book sources, but for the most part he just ignores repeated messages from DYK editors. His noms I generally reject straight off if I see problems (since they're easier to evaluate Nlu's), but it's a similar sort of issue: DYK (like any other area, I'm sure) has its share of relatively experienced editors who have their editing style, know what their editing style is, and aren't interested in changing it just because some young upstart whippersnappers like me leave them a message.

As to the general question of quality control, it's a kind of sticky situation, as you have probably seen from the responses to Awadewit's proposal at WT:DYK. I am more or less in the camp that wants to see the standards raised, but I can also understand the views from people like Yomangani who are concerned about raising the bar too high. I generally try to enforce relatively high standards for the basic "homework" part of a new article—sourcing, inline citations, de-orphaning, proper format—and remain a little more lax in terms of content issues like breadth of coverage. Basically, I agree with those people that we shouldn't require "mini-GAs", and that it would be hard to do content assessments that quickly anyway, so when I review an article I just do a quick once-over to make sure there aren't egregious content problems (blatant POV slant or slanderous material, wording that's totally incomprehensible to a lay reader) and then focus mostly on making sure the writer has "done their homework" as far as using proper format, providing sources, links, etc. That way I feel like I can have some quality control over what's going to the main page and can uphold some standards about making sure new articles have those minimum essentials, without getting into the more controversial area of doing in-depth content and quality assessments. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, as you point out, what happens to DYKs after their 15 minutes of fame is another issue to consider. One of the arguments I hear a lot from the people against raising the DYK bar is that part of DYK's purpose should be to showcase new articles that still need work, and to invite improvement....so obviously the question of whether or not DYKs do get improvement is worth considering (although someone could respond by saying "well, they would get improvement, but you raised the bar too high and now there's not any easy improvement to be done). That's part of the reason I made User:Rjanag/DYKfuture, to get a sense of what some DYKs go on to do in their life after DYK. Of course, as I always point out, that page is useless and was just something for fun, since it doesn't really put those numbers in perspective; if we took the 1700 or so DYKs that have gone on to be good/featured content and compared it to whatever the total number of former DYK articles is, we'd probably find that it's only a tiny percentage. Just for me, three of my 23 DYKs have gone on to be GAs, which is not a whole lot. But I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. We've hit a point where, although there is still lots of worthwhile content that needs to be written, at least half of DYK is articles about Joe Schmoe baseball player, some politician from Bulgaria, a road, or a mushroom. A lot of these articles just intrinsically don't have much that can or should be written about them, so after they go through DYK it's not necessarily bad that they don't see much improvement; if they're boring articles that no one will want to look at anyway, DYK is the only chance to make sure they're not terrible, and they have good sources, etc. I guess the real question is that, if a good portion of new articles are boring, should we really be devoting such a big chunk of the main page to showing 8 new articles when at least half of them are pretty bland? But that question opens up the extremely messy issue of how to judge what hooks are interesting and what aren't, and that idea has pretty much always been shot down; in practice, it's very rare to reject an article or a hook for being too boring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nlu doesn't touch his articles after his DYK. They all have the same formatting errors. I think he just copy/pastes. Many DYK's just are more junk for Wikipedia to deal with. Many are orphans and will probably never be touched again. Many look like they should be immediately merged out of existence or never should have been created. Instead, the editor gets to rack up another reward for his collection.

I can see lowering the bar for a new editor, or a foreign language editor etc. but not a repeated abuser. Nlu is egregious. The low standards of those that promote make it virtually useless for someone like me to bother putting time into quality evaluation. Eventually, I believe something from outside will bring DYK down, as the standards of Wikipedia are rising dramatically, and eventually the glaring problems at DYK will bring attention to it. Bad grammar and punctuation, meaningless hooks, repetitious hooks, the same thing over and over. Oh well. There just are not enough editors that have basic writing skills or even basic article evaluation skills who are willing to work at DYK. Is it that poor editors are attracted to DYK work? Is there any form of quality control? Why is the skill level so low? I am puzzled that quality editors are not interested in DYK, when there are so many good editors on Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Many nominate their article for DYK as part of their march to FAC. So those articles would have become FA or GA, regardless of DYK. The editor has that goal in the beginning, like Ottava. I don't think DYK has any material influence on an article going on to FA or GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(re your first point) Yeah, that's part of the reason why I don't bother with those articles anymore—I believe there are problems, but I'm just one person and not really able to tackle the amount of work that would be necessary to change the Nlu issue at DYK. Many editors have brought it up before at various talkpages and noticeboards, and nothing has ever come of it, so I'd have a lot of material (old discussions) to work through before I could even think about what needs to be done.

As for poor grammar, copyediting, etc...yeah, I used to spend a lot more time copyediting and cleaning up articles, but eventually I got frustrated doing what I felt was the article writer's work...going through and putting spaces after all the periods, stuff like that, can get annoying after a while. I still do it sometimes, but not as a rule. To be honest, I think bad grammar and copyediting are surmountable problems (just establish more of a precedent for slapping cleanup tags on an article and rejecting/delaying the nom until the issues are fixed), and articles with content holes or poor coverage are not necessarily a problem (it's ok for DYK articles to be incomplete, as long as they don't have egregious POV problems and stuff like that), whereas the biggest problem that DYK has to face is the problem of lackluster hooks and articles. It is beginning to get a reputation for being a collection of boring trivia (and I'll admit, even though I usually make an effort to write interesting DYK hooks, there are probably 4 or 5 of mine that are guilty of the same problem as most DYKs) and there's no easy way to change that. Requiring hooks to be "interesting" raises all the subjectivity problems that have been talked about already, and it intensifies the existing problem of people highlighting or puffing up a bland fact (State Road 234087 is the fourth-longest road in Boring County, Kansas? oh, boy!). If anything is ever going to "bring down" DYK, I think it would be that issue, rather than copyediting and formatting concerns. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about bad grammar, copy editing in the hooks. Surely there must be a group of editors that can actually write and evaluate to do the hooks! Many of the ones doing it seem clueless. I used to post an error on the talk page when I saw something egregious, but now I don't bother. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, that's just a problem with reviewers; personally, I try to be pretty brutal in trimming down hooks and copyediting them, because most nominators seem to cram as much information as possible into their hook (which, contrary to what they expect, just makes it even more boring...a five-word quip about a boring fact is a lot less boring than a four-line rant about it). Another problem is that I think in our hurry to move verified hooks over to Next without getting in an edit conflict, we might sometimes accidentally grab the non-copyedited hook; one thing that might help would be to standardize a procedure for marking hooks that have been verified (like by sticking them in with the auto-generated credits). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Something is needed. Not that I know what. But it is becoming a joke.

The hooks are boring trivia. I used to rewrite them, but now I see it's pointless because why bother when a plethora of boring trivia is going to be promoted anyway. And I think the hook writers know that, so they don't bother, for the most part, to worry if their hook is "interesting or intriguing" as they know that is irrelevant ultimately.

And the effect is to increase the submission of boring, trivial hooks. It is easy to tell that there are no standards. Soon you will be flooded. Perhaps you have notices that DYK is becoming an easy mark.

I don't understand the hook selection process. But why is it all done at the last minute. Why is there no quality control. Why is almost every hook guaranteed to be used? Why is it no honor whatsoever to be selected for DYK. Just manage to get 1500 characters in an orphan article, that's all. And if you have an endless resource, like the Book of Tang (or whatever), you will have several weekly DYKs for the foreseeable future. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For a long time, the general feeling was that DYK was not so much an "award" as a pat on the back, especially for new users. (And, to be honest, I'm not all that happy seeing RfAs with stuff like "so-and-so has written 20 DYKs"; I don't think they should be used like that...I keep track of my DYK hooks but just because I like having a record of them, not because I think it shows people how stellar a guy I am.) Therefore, there was a general idea that if you wrote or expanded an article and it has references, you were "entitled" to a DYK, no matter how interesting the article was (like I said, it's rare to reject an article for being boring, although I have done so a couple times, only after a week or so of discussion trying to find good hooks and failing). That probably needs to change, especially now that a lot of people seem to be trying to make something of their DYK tallies—if a DYK is going to be an "award" then you should have to earn it. The problem, of course, is how we would implement that change...there's no good objective way to measure interesting-ness (if I were vetting hooks on a given day, I can guarantee you not many sports hooks would get through because I think most of them were stupid; on the other hand, if someone else were vetting, I get half of mine, including this one up right now, wouldn't make it) and if we had extended discussions of each hook we wouldn't be able to keep up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What about having some (gasp) criteria, especially since, as you say, editors are avidly racking up their DYK counts as if it means something besides having nothing else to do. FAC is unpopular because of its criteria, but it does have respect. And editors are willing to put work into achieving it. I am not suggesting anything like that for DYK. But lets face it, if all you have to do is scrap together 1500 characters on anything, or nominate an article that you have not clue what it means so you can't possibly write a coherent hook, and you get to collect a DYK for your next RFA, it would be bad enough. But the fact it gets on the main page is a travesty. I would be willing to offer a "help" service for those editors who are truly at a disadvantage. But most of the DYK regualars now seem to be big time professional collectors. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, what would the criteria be, and how would we uphold them? Looking at the current DYK batch, I think hooks 3–6 are utterly boring, and 1 is borderline. 3 and 4 are particularly bad. But ask anyone else, and I bet they will single out different hooks; some people might even like some of the hooks that I think are stupid. I don't know of any way we could objectively reach an agreement on what hooks are interesting, without having a discussion for each hook that would last a while; to make that work, we would pretty much have to accept way fewer hooks than we do now, and leave the accepted ones up for much longer (like, maybe only 1 update a day) so that those hooks get us farther. And, since I'm sure people would still be nominating stuff just as fast as we are now, we'd get a pretty big backlog...we would have to have some sort of "quick-fail" criteria to get rid of hooks that are so boring they're not even worth discussing, but again it's not very clear how to do that objectively. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It definitely would take some working out. But what you seem to be saying now is that the lowest common denominator determines the outcome. It used to be that if a hook was not chosen in the five day, then goodbye hook. I know I had many overlooked through that system. But I had much more respect for DYK then and I actively worked on hooks and articles with DYK criteria in mind. Now, as you say, DYK is an entitlement. And the DYK hook posters, apparently care about being liked more than quality. And now that Orlady is back, I expect things to go down hill, as that person, whatever her excellencies in other areas, lakes editorial judgment and skill. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I agree that it shouldn't be an entitlement, and something somewhat TFA-style (where people support or oppose proposed hooks) could be nice (although that won't happen anytime in the forseeable future, since it would be a major battle to implement a change that big). But in practice it's hard to reject most hooks if all the stuff has been verified, especially if you know your personal opinion is coming into play (ie, if I rejected some boring sports hook, I'm sure people could scroll up the page and find some different topic hook that was just as boring, objectively, but I didn't reject)...it would invite a lot of squabbling over whether or not something is "interesting" and how many people out in the real world care about X. Letting hooks older than 5 days disappear might reduce squabbling, since it's a bit more objective (it basically seems to say, "Yeah, your article was verified, but your hook was so boring that it didn't catch anyone's attention; if you can't hook anyone in within 5 days and get them to promote your hook, then it doesn't deserve to be featured). Going through the dregs in Older Noms is often quite a chore, since they're the hooks that didn't excite anyone and no one wants to deal with. But again, it would require a lot of fighting to get this changed, since right now the status quo is still at the entitlement thing and the idea that every nomination deserves to get looked at, no matter how boring it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, right now it pretty much is the lowest common denominator. If I think a hook is boring, I'm obligated to ask myself, "But will anyone else find it interesting?" If the answer is yes, I usually have no choice but to clean it up as best as I can and pass it (assuming that no hooks that are more interesting are possible). Only when the answer is no and the hook is truly trivial (along the lines of "... that Joe Schmoe and Joe Schmoe's brother both had the same father?"), and there are no other possibilities, do I get to reject it without getting in trouble. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

← (out dent and edit conflict) The more power to you for hanging in. I admire you. I see you have given it thought. However, acceding to the lowest common denominator is not the way to quality, although I certainly understand your reasons. When I think of the difficulty involved in getting one criteria into FAC, that of requiring a search of the literature; it was a massive and lengthy battle, heated at times. But finally it was added, and it will make a difference. What should the goal of Wikipedia be? Keeping most of the editors comfortable most of the time? Meaning no one has to exert themselves out of their comfort zone. And here I am referring to the DKY reviewers and those that chose and edit the hooks. (I don't think those that submit hooks can be blamed as they go by the cues as set forth by reviewers and hook passers.) Unfortunately, an undiscriminating group of editors is attracted to work on DYK, perhaps because it is so undemanding, having only minor criteria to worry about. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha...I don't know if you could call what I've been doing lately "hanging in"; I probably review about 1 nom a week. I am hoping i can get back into it once I have more time, but right now I'm just tired from RL and when I do get on Wikipedia I feel like doing other stuff.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on Street newspaper, I would like to see you write more articles. You are a smoothing/soothing influence at DYK, but is the time/energy sink, with little net positive outcome, worth if for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you deleted my addition to "viral video" with the comment "(rv good faith edit: "all your base" is a phrase, not the name of a video) (undo)" , Will try to rephrase and make this clearer, hope you do not mind me adding it again. You are correct in that it was badly fomulated, but the flash-animation/videos made from the flash animation are quite widespread. Sas2009 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, we have a couple of new Chinese dinos, Xiongguanlong and Beishanlong, and I see that 该用户能以地道的北方话进行交流。
Is there any chance that you could link our articles on these critters to their counterparts on 文言 Wikipedia?
Thanks. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I can do that, but I don't know the names of these dinosaurs in characters. Is it 雄关龙 and 北山龙? Also, by "文言" do you mean 中文 (zh-wiki)? As far as I know, there is no 文言 version of Wikipedia, only 现代中文. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue at all. I just cut-and-pasted. The "languages" section in the left-hand bar of some articles shows "中文". Hm, that's not what I originally copied, is it? Sorry, I goofed somewhere. I'm sure I copied that from somewhere on Wikipedia, but don't know where.
I took a quick look at 中文 Wikipedia earlier: en Tyrannosauroid = http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/暴龍超科 and has a list of genera.
帝龍 (Dilong) and 冠龍 (Guanlong) are listed and linked there. I didn't see anything on the new "?-冠龍" (Xiongguanlong) on that page or on zh Wikipedia's main page. Maybe no article just yet?
Sorry for my clumsiness! - 鬼子 mistake. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, I looked around (did a zh-wiki search for any page with "冠龙" in the title) and couldn't find any article for Xiongguanlong... it looks like there just isn't an article yet. Once I figure out which character xiong is I can watchlist that page on zh-wiki and then I'll know when someone starts an article, and I can link it.

(And by the way, no worries; I'm a 鬼子 too!) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one way to cut down on the number of links is simply to stop linking the section headers. It's not as if we need these headers to be linked, when the articles are already embedded in the hooks. Just a thought. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a good idea. I'll make the change. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's killed DYKcheck on the nominations page. DYKcheck detects nominated articles by links in the header (for one article noms it's easy, but for multiple article noms it has to distinguish between the articles). Shubinator (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm looking at the HTML for the noms page, and it might be possible to code DYKcheck to find titles another way. The easiest might be to take it from the credits in the hidden div. Of course, this means more cleanup when people don't use the nom template. Or we could add some sort of code to the section headers so the script can distinguish hooks – the comma won't do because then "Kimberly, Maryland" would be seen as two hooks. Picking out bolded wikilinks is harder than it sounds, because the order of the tags can be either way (either bold first, or wikilink first). Almost all the time people put the bold outside the link, but I've seen both. I'll look into detecting bolded wikilinks tonight though; it's probably the most intuitive for editors. Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What if I just add some random stuff that would be invisible on the actual page and that wouldn't cause the page to have to render anything, but that DYKcheck could recognize? Something along the lines of

==== <!--hey DYKcheck, here I am!--> Article ====

Not that gaudy, but you see my point. Anyway, would that work? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If people use the template, DYKcheck could just scrape it off the credits, so no extra template code is necessary. Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't resist the challenge of detecting bolded wikilinks. Theoretically DYKcheck would take the first hook detected and assume all bolded wikilinks are nominated articles. The problems here would be 1) If DYKcheck can't find the hook, but so far it's been pretty good. For multiple sentence hooks, though, it only sees the first sentence (before the question mark) as a hook. 2) If an article is added to or removed from the nom. If the first hook is checked, articles added later won't be detected, and if the last hook is checked, articles removed won't be detected. Shubinator (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Both the cases you mention above (multi-sentence hooks and article additions/removals) are rare—the latter is somewhat rare, and the latter extremely so—so if DYKcheck chokes up on a couple of those from time to time I don't think anyone will mind. For a lot of other potential problems, they're things that usually get cleared up by hand anyway. For example, sometimes people don't bold their article, which would break DYKcheck, but we always fix that right away anyway (sometimes with a somewhat miffed edit summary, at least if I'm the one doing it), so it's not a problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like to make the script intuitive so people don't have to go out of their way to make the hooks script-readable. We already check for bolded article links, so it works out. Hopefully today or tomorrow I can work something out. I'm thinking I'll have it display an error if it can't find a hook. Right now it doesn't because it can (well, could) find the article title independently, so only the hook character length broke. If the whole system depends on hook-finding, though, I'll definitely add in "Error: Hook not formatted correctly" or something like that. Do you have a preference between first hook and last hook for finding titles? Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Last hook would probably be best, since it's the most likely to reflect recent changes (removals of articles or, more commonly, additions). In the rare cases when the last hook won't work for checking all the articles (for example, if someone suggests a three-article multi-nom but no one likes it and it gets split up into three separate hooks) I think people can just bite the bullet and check manually; that doesn't happen very often so it's not a big deal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There, it's done. 'Twas a nice challenge. I tested it out on some trickier noms including Dan Pagis (error message) and HMS Seine (1798) and HMS Vengeance (1800) (multi article), and a test nom I made myself. While I was testing out some random noms, I stumbled across Charles Peebler, Pork. The Other White Meat, National Pork Board, which for some odd reason was only giving one article. I investigated, and found that DYKcheck was confused by the "?" in "Got Milk?", and interpreting that as the end of the hook. So I added in a check for question marks inside wikilinks, and that should also work now. The script goes by the last hook detected, and gives separate errors for 1) can't find a hook, and 2) no bolded link in hook. You might need to bypass your browser cache for the browser to load the updated script (shift refresh instead of just refresh on Firefox). Shubinator (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, that looks good. Thanks for updating it so quickly! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well done on the Featured Article - it is a great article. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Porque lo transformaron al articulo si no tiene nada de malo?. Siempre recibi alabaciones por la actividad de importacia del artículo en Wikipedia, ya que tiene razones para hacerlo. No lo borren porque no tiene nada de malo, y no tendría sentido, y repongan el artículo TAL COMO ESTABA Y NO ME INTERESA QUE NO QUIERAN. Muchas gracias --ervinnnnnnn 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruuta 25 (talk • contribs)

As I said, I'll edit and source all criticism. Two days may not be enough to give it this length, but there will at least be something by then. It's just that in the span in which I've used Wikipedia, there has never been a section for it. Also, the information is from the last time the article had a section for criticism. I'm for the idea of being fair. I have had a battle with GameStop/EB for about the same amount of time, and the consensus on many forums and several google results on their practices indicate they aren't favorable. I don't want to kill the site for anyone, but I'm tired of the PC-PR bullshit on this site, you know? Even if there is negative mention, if it is encyclopedic (for example. scientific, industrial, or public consensus), the section should be included. I would hope you agree with me on principal of fact vs. diplomacy, especially with the overwhelmingly unrepresented negative view of IGN and wikipedia's absolute defense of it so far. Despite a select few running this site as they've seen fit for the last few years, I still love it and want to preserve the original intent. I hope you will help me if there is further consult on the part of editors. I've been without any ally for a long time in a seemingly endless battle to make this site work for a greater purpose than internet penis endowment, such as the public that we strive to make the site accessible to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhiterussian (talk • contribs)

Moved from your userpage :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know I haven't had the time this weekend, so I removed the section and will get around to making it legit eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhiterussian (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your collegial discussion of the issues regarding the Youtube fame article. I made a mistake invoking the "a merge doesn't require an AfD" argument in the discussion, since we had discused using AfD as a way to get broader input and consensus. Sorry about that, bad form on my part. I didn't mean to fight dirty, even though I was raised on the mean streets of New York. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't consider it dirty! Of course, I'm not satisfied with the result, but oh well. Time to move on, I guess. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where the project will be in another five years? When I started it was barely in the top 500 sites and had about 250,000 articles. Thanks for the nice community-building infobox! Jokestress (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rjanag. The adoptee categories have sufferred from overcategorization, with 20+ subsets, the majority of which are underpopulated with only 1 entry. The overcategorization has stopped people from seeing larger connections and creates significant confusion. Additionally, we have a lot of people adding articles to the category who have no connection to the main Adoption article, creating numerous errors, which could be serious in regard to WP:BLP issues (in fact many of my edits have finally removed these issues). We will have better control with consolidated categories. The final result will include the sub-categories: Adoptees, Adoptees adopted by family, Fictional adoptees, and Historical adoptees; covering the waterfront. It's a long process, but it is bearing fruit. Thanks for taking interest. This will culminate in a new "Adoption project" to link together the now fragmented Adoption series of articles.Tobit2 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Concerning your first question, this was put in the Talk pages on a few of the Adoption Category pages. I've been the main guardian for the adoption pages for some time now; but I work in spurts. Sorry for the sudden changes. Anyway, the categorization by nationalities caused under-population of categories and frankly makes little sense. Tristian drowse for example appeared as both an Indonesian and Irish adoptee. Huh? There was no consistency. By having all adoptees in the same page, we can better distinguish between related adoptions (adoptions by family members), unrelated adoptions (adoptions by unrelated individuals), fictional adoptees, and historical ones (the number of historical errors I encountered in biographies was scandalous). If we had to put each of the 4 categories in each of the nationalities, we would have a mess compounded on a mess and would never be able to watch all new enteries. Concerning your second question, you are right they should be deleted by the normal process. I will revert those and propose deletion. Thank you again.Tobit2 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The nationalities were a big problem. In an age of international adoption, in climate where the definition of adoptee changes over time and by culture, we end up getting very different categories that should not even be lumped together in the adoption group. The Japanese category was a good example. Only one article in the group had any relation to the English word adoption. Someone who likely knew little about adoption probably set the nationalities up originally. In contrast, the related vs. unrelated is the true split here. Adoptee experiences are divided largely by this. There are even better sub-categories, e.g., interacial adoptee, but I don't have time now to make this. Historical and Fictional is required also, but these were already there. Anyway, I am putting the nationalities back and then will formally propose deletion. So then people can vote if people they want to retain them to make sister-categories.Tobit2 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

actually I just referred the whole matter to the BLP noticeboard so recommend you learn to stop biting off more than you can chew. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I already saw the BLP posting, thanks. And don't worry, I can chew quite a lot. No need to make any more threats, let's keep this civil. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for saying you didn't edit the chinese gymnast pages alot, I now see you have worked on deng linlin quite a bit. Maybe then you can make the wiki link work on the BLP page, for yang lilin because it won't take for what ever reason and I have checked the spelling repeatedly. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I already did fix the link, twice (because you broke it again after the first time). All that you need to do to keep the link working is not change the spelling again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should know that I've worked on all those articles, not just Deng. I used to edit under the username Politizer, which you can find quite a bit of at the He Kexin talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lateralized readiness potential, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use sarcastic remarks like "the article is pretty crappy" in your edit summaries. If you have a problem, fix it, no need to be derogatory. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the nomination to highlight what was so unusual about these operations - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. And, yes...I don't think i'll cut and paste anymore. I realized I had made the mistake when I submitted it and was frantically trying to fix it when...you did it for me.

I'll do better next time, I promise! ^_^; Silverseren^C 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...I wish I had had that before...but now I will make sure to employ it! Thanks again! :D Silverseren^C 03:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rjanag, I left a warning to the user, but maybe community action will be required. This user has a permanent block from es.Wikipedia [5] because he used multiples Ips for harassment after his article related to terrorism was deleted. --J^mundo 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be watching but he doesn't make much sense in Spanish either :). I requested deletion of Ervin Gallina because it was redirecting to his essay in his userspace. --J^mundo 23:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for making me work for my DYK nomination - the end result is a much more interesting (and better referenced) hook. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

... to say thanks for all the hard work you put it at DYK. Reviewing noms is particularly important with the backlog and you do more than your fair share. One of your comments has also inspired me to link an image from commons that I'd forgotten about - see Template talk:Did you know#Rolea B'ier District. I had to bribe an airforce guard to get that shot! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haipa Doragon (talk • contribs)

Best wishes for your RFA. ^_^b. --Caspian blue 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some questions for your consideration. Cheers, and best wishes. 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

O it's your turn apparently? I was going to have you try and convince me to support, given you being neutral at mine, lol, but you are clearly a great candidate. Cheers. Law _{type! snype?} 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. I was wondering if I should move the Stacey Castor article to the Articles created/expanded on April 26 section at Template talk: Did you know since that is when I significantly expanded that article. Or do you feel that since it has been days since I placed it in the 25 section, it does not matter as much now? (There is also the fact that I am not sure that I would want to put the Stacey Castor article ahead of other articles in the 26 section when it has been at Template talk: Did you know for days now.) The reason I did not originally place it in the 26 section is because, considering it is only a one day difference between when it was created and when it was significantly expanded, I felt it was better to go with the technical day it was created. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your intuition was right here; if I were the one nominated, I would have considered it a new article rather than an expansion, and nominated it on the 25th like you did. It's not a hard-and-fast rule; in the past people have sometimes nominated that they expanded and not credited the person who "created" the article on the same day, if the person created the article as a one-line stub and didn't do any of the real work. That's been a sticky issue in the past and personally I prefer to just give creator credit if someone created the article, even if they barely did anything. As for the general issue of creation/expansion, the rule of thumb is to nominate the article for when the DYK-related work started not when most of it was done. So, for example, if I expanded an article by 100 characters today, and then expanced it by 25,000 more characters on Thursday, I might still consider the expansion to have started today.

Anyway, yeah, I think the 25th is fine for now. If you do want to move it to the 26th, though, that's not a major problem, since it's just a one-day difference. And actually, since the DYK team tends to choose articles starting at the bottom and working up, you'd actually be putting Stacy Castor behind the other 26th articles, rather than ahead! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Rjanag. I just remember that when I significantly expanded the fictional character article Todd Manning from a stub and nominated it at DYK, I had to place it under the section/day I had significantly expanded it due to it being considered a new article because of that expansion (and, of course, not having a section for when it was technically created). At the moment, I cannot remember if I gave the technical creator of that article credit. If I did not, then it was either because it was not required then or I overlooked that requirement.

Thank you again. And for crediting me as one of the creators of the Stacey Castor article the other day. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, in that case the original creator didn't need to be credited because it was several years before; all that needs to get credited is the people who did the DYK-relevant work, which is the recent creating or expanding. In that case, although someone else had created the article in 2004, you were the one who had made it a "new" article, so it as appropriate to just nominate it for the day you made it new. In cases where the article is created one day and then expanded just a day or two later, it's normal to nominate it under the day it was creation since that was part of the process of making it DYK-new. Of course, that's why there has sometimes been disagreement over what to do in articles like Stacey Castor; on the one hand, the other editor did create it within the 5 days of the DYK eligibility period, so he did have some role in making it a "new" article for right now; on the other hand, you did most of the work. Personally, in this case I think it's best to credit the original creator as well and nominate it for the 25th, like you did, but there are also arguments for doing it the other way. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya. I appreciate the insightful information, and will definitely be leaving the Stacey Castor article under the 25 section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have time to comment on the Stacey Castor talk page about some concerns with the article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please check List of offences that attract jail terms in China Arilang ^talk 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 1》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 2》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 3》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 4》 是中国人都要看的电影 4
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 5》 是中国人都要看的电影

• In Chinese: 大陆禁片《我虽死去 6》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 7》 是中国人都要看的电影

]

• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 8》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 9》 是中国人都要看的电影
• In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 10》 是中国人都要看的电影
• Arilang ^talk 09:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit unfair to Labov, Sapir and Whorf, don't you think...? garik (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True, I guess I shouldn't characterize Labov (in particular) as "not science", especially given his huge influence on sociolinguistics. Mainly I was just trying to make a point that the book Ottava mentioned seemed to only be focusing on one half (at most) of what "linguistics" is concerned with. From following this discussion, I'm feeling more and more that we all need keep in mind the natural inclination of highly-educated people to see things through the one lens that they know well. For someone like me, whose interests are mostly in the cognitive science side of things, I can't help but look at linguistics and think "experiments, language module, how stuff works," bla bla bla; even when looking at work in theoretical fields, like syntax of phonology, I catch myself thinking "ok, nice theory, but how does the brain actually do that?" Likewise, for someone whose background is more in literary theory, like Ottava, or in philosophy, it's just as easy to look at linguistics and think, I dunno, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc. It's a pretty broad field that spreads its tentacles into a lot of other fields, so it's natural that people in neighboring fields will be tempted to grab onto one of those tentacles and assume that's the whole thing; I'm sure I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. We must all be careful! And I agree with the "in particular" too. To me, Labovian sociolinguistics is a nice example of a scientific approach in an area that has an occasional tendency to drift into unscientific nonsense and ideology. The problem with syntactic and phonological theory, as you imply, is that people seem to get drawn so far into the thickets of the formal model that they lose sight of the mental architecture they thought they were modelling. garik (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I don't like Derrida, nor do I think he is correct. I only weighed in because there was a 50/50 split between edit warriors for including him or not, and Derrida is a major critic of an individual who has a prominent role in the article and the criticism deals with that prominent role. I primarily deal with genre and genre classification (with emphasis on the Epic). I also deal with historical linguistics (with emphasis on Lexicography developments) and with phonology and its role in prosody. So, three aspects of linguistics that are not necessary "literary analysis". I hope that clarifies. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, then, if I mischaracterized your field. To be honest, I have no background in genre classification and only very meager background in historical linguistics (although I'm not exactly sure if you're using "historical linguistics" to refer to the history of linguistics, or to diachronic linguistics), and don't feel qualified to comment on either one; as for phonology, it's not exactly my field, but I can say with some confidence that phonologists (both in generative phonology and in OT) don't talk much about Derrida. But anyway, like I implied at the discussion, I'm not really opposed to any mention of Derrida whatsoever, I just hope that it is kept in context and not given undue weight (mostly because of that article's history with User:Supriyya and socks, who wanted to use this article as a platform to push his/her bizarre attempt to "redefine" linguistics). I'm not singling out Derrida there; when I first started editing Neurolinguistics one of the things I had to do was wipe out the obsession with Chomsky that was present in the earlier revisions of that article—overzealous focus on any one person or subfield, whether it's Chomsky or Derrida, is not good for the article. If whatever Derrida gets inserted into Linguistics is kept to something reasonable, I doubt I'll have a problem with it. (But anyway, for what it's worth, the argument about inclusion of Focault and Derrida has been going on since at least mid-2008.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical linguistics meaning both, to be honest, as early lexicons and the rest are historical attempts at linguistics but also shine on development of language. Now for Chomsky - there are two competing schools of "Linguistics" in the US (Eastern and Western). Chomsky would only represent 50%. Now, his mostly focus on the cognitive/psychological aspect where the opposite school focuses on the pragmatic aspect (as the most important emphasis for the rest). But yeah, you should have been around when I tried to separate portmanteau and blends from compound words - many people couldn't understand that these were actual linguistic terms and aren't just applied because you feel like it. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I actually had forgotten that it was today; I'd been keeping track and counting down earlier in the month, but then let it slip my mind. Good luck on your RfA. :) GlassCobra 11:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Already one year on wiki docent feel like it. Cheers Kyle1278 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well that being the author of an article does not mean you have exclusive rights over it. That is absolutely not what I meant. Being the author does mean that it is a bit silly to even suspect me of being "malicious" towards the article. Das Baz 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, no one said i was being malicious. But to say "I know you are not being malicious" is a back-handed way to hint maybe I'm being malicious, at least on this planet. Das Baz 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)For someone who does not want to fight, you certainly have a hostile and negative attitude. I do not appreciate your twisting and misinterpreting everything I say. Das Baz 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted that one, along with three other redirects. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)