User talk:Rangek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Khmer Rouge 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez 3 Uvula Edit 4 Anton LeVay 5 Nollywood 6 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Khmer Rouge

Arbitration has been filed, do you care to make a statement? WP:RFAR CJK 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uvula Edit

It was I who edited the uvula page (it's my biggest edit so far), and I felt it was a good edit. I'll go through the edits...the first three aren't so bad.

The page calls the uvula "cone-shaped", which it can be, but not always, and not in the visuals that accompany the article. This phrase, "cone-shaped" seems to have been copied from another source.

The page later says the uvula got its name from its "grape-like shape". This also is not always true, and is not seen very much in the visuals. Other sources say that the word uvula in latin meant a swollen uvula, which do look like grapes.

I put some brackets around nasopharynx, so those who have no idea what it is can go to its page.

Here's where I got a bit bolder. It seemed so obvious to me, that I defied all of my sources. I guess I didn't consider it research because of its obviousness. The uvula simply cannot be used as a place of articulation. My guess is that people got confused because of the term "uvular", which I think is used because the terms palatal and velar were taken, and they needed a term that indicates a sound made further back, NEAR the uvula, at the very back of the soft palate. I explained this lower down in the section, in far fewer words.

I dont think the paragraph on phonetics belongs in this article. It should be on the Soft_palate page. Maybe a link from the uvula page would be appropriate.

Oh, two things wrong with the page...the main function of the uvula isn't mentioned, and I should have put brackets around my "uvular" at the bottom.

If you feel it was wrong to bring this here, I apologize. Write somethin' back.

I don't think defying your sources is ever a good idea. I am glad you wanted to make improvements, but you need sources if you are going to delete/change already existing material that seems reasonable. A better place for this discussion would be that talkpage for the article in question. You may also find that contributions from people with accounts, rather than anonymous editors are not dismissed as readily.

Oh, and sign you comments, please. Rangek 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, using the talk page doesn't work. No one pays attention until you actually start editing a page. And then they don't understand what you're doing. I just wish I could get some people on my side. If only more people were as passionate about uvulas as I am...sigh...

And I think defying your sources is sometimes the only reasonable position. – Misha

216.254.12.114 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anton LeVay

I don't deny that Anton LeVay said he was influenced by Ayn Rand. However, I have been told many times by different people that this particular list is for philosophers only. Now, if there are some individuals who are eager to identify LeVay as a philosopher but remove all statements referring to Ayn Rand as one, I think this article has some serious problems.

Also, I don't think that deleting LeVay's name is vandalism because there are people who strongly object to his presence on that list on the grounds that he doesn't belong.

Alright I guess if some people are that passionate about it, I can live with his name in the article. Adam T.

[edit] Nollywood

Hello! I came accross this news item (published just a few months back) that states :

In the last five years, Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, has been churning out between 600 and 2,000 films a year, becoming the third-largest film industry behind the US and India.

I, in good faith, do not mistrust the article in Economic times that you are pointing as reference, even though I cant view it. But this news item seems to directly contradict it. Also, in the ref that you provided on Cinema of India, you are comparing the 2003 output of India and US, to that of the 2006 output of Nigeria. Could you please provide a different source that backs Nollywood's claim? Perhaps from some Novergian newspapers? Thanks!-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can