User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 13

U.S. English

Please stop restoring the link to a Southern Poverty Law Center article. The link was replaced by one from an academic who is a recognized expert in the field, which contains exactly the same info as the SPLC link. The SPLC is not a reputable resource and is no more appropriate a reference for Wikipedia than, say, Free Republic, or Lyndon LaRouche movement websites. All links to articles on such websites are original research. The ArbCom rulied that LaRouche material cannot be used as references on Wikipedia except on articles that are specifically about LaRouche, and based on that precedent, material from the Southern Poverty Law Center should also not be used except on articles about the SPLC. Links to SPLC articles need to be replaced with links to recognized experts who, even though they may be critics themselves or have their own strong POV, are nonetheless able to write about the topic in a detached, NPOV way. The SPLC is highly partisan and alarmist and unable to do this.70.108.135.136 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the SPLC gives the entire text of the memo and no commentary on it, while the link to Crawford's book excerpt (which incidentally I never removed) provides only a short quote from it and plenty of partisan commentary from the author. It is entirely appropriate to provide readers the chance to read the entire memo. Lyndon LaRouche has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and I can't imagine why you even brought him up. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the SPLC's credibility is comparable to that of Lyndon LaRouche and because the ArbCom ruling regarding LaRouche material as sources therefore makes a good precedent for not using SPLC material as sources either. 70.108.135.136 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is also a money-grubbing fundraising machine which exists solely to fatten Morris Dees' bank account. Providing links to his website could also be considered commercial spam for this reason. 70.108.135.136 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave your personal politics out of this. The ArbCom ruling on LaRouche has zero relevance here. As I said on the talk page, if you can find another page that has the complete text of the memo, you can link to that instead. Name-calling isn't going to win you any arguments. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the SPLC is considered a reliable source around here. It is not considered similar to LaRouche webistes or Free Republic. -Will Beback 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That says a lot about the systemic bias rampant on Wikipedia doesn't it? Wikipedia editors are self-selected from the academic intellectual class, which is also the class where SPLC and related groups get most of their support from. I'll tell you why they're in the same league as LaRouche and Free Republic: All three are True Believers. The academic intellectual class will never recognize this fact because they are one of the groups most prone to being True Believers themselves (see Eric Hoffer to understand why). 70.108.121.71 10:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

Angr,

I was curious as to why an article that I authored, one on the PTC Gz, was deleted by you late last month. I was curious as to what I can do to provide citations or material to prove that the group did exist, as I was once a member, or to prove its cultural impact on its home community and many others. Please inform me as to what I can do to get the PTC Gz article reinstated. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Tiganeman

I deleted because it was an proposed deletion that had not been contested within five days of proposal. Since you're clearly contesting the deletion now, I've restored it at PTC Gz. However, it can still be nominated for deletion. I recommend you read WP:MUSIC and WP:V for information on how well-known a band needs to be to warrant an article, and how to provide verification of their notability. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain band deletion?

Angr,

I'd like to know why you deleted the article I just added for Porcelain, an Australian band recently signed to a major US record label. I simply added their biography and links to their websites, and thought it was a simple, accurate addition with no reason to be considered for deletion. Please undelete or explain your reason for deletion. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Industriality

I deleted it because User:Gadren tagged it for speedy deletion under speedy criterion A7 (article on a group of people that does not assert their notability). Please see WP:MUSIC for guidelines on how notable a band must be to warrant an article on Wikipedia. In general, bands have to be established before there's an article on them. If they've only just recently been signed to a major record label, they're probably not considered notable enough yet. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an indie band with a barely similar name to Porcelain ("Fine China") be allowed an entry on a major page, but a band signed to a major record label, Universal no less, not be allowed? I mean no disrespect, I'm just new to being a contributor (long time user), and want to understand why articles are moderated so strictly when what I have done is simply add uncontested useful information.

Industriality

I should also mention that the criteria under which you listed as the reason for this deletion, Speedy Criterion 17, does not apply: "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism." My article was neither nonsense nor vandalism, and the popularity of a band does not seem to warrant speedy deletion.

I have nothing to do with the article on the band Fine China. If they don't meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC either, you're free to put the {{db-group}} tag on their article as well. The speedy criteria include cases of patent nonsense and pure vandalism, but aren't limited to those cases. Criterion A7 is for people or groups of people with no assertion of notability. It's applied especially strictly to bands around here because of the huge amount of band vanity we get. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the PROD instead of the speedy deletion. I will make sure that this article gets contributed to the point of much greater "notability" than many permanent articles here.

Jalopnik AfD Question

In the AfD for Jalopnik you state that it is not subject to {{db-repost}} as it was recreated after being deleted via proposed deletion. I am sure I have missed something some where but for future reference, why not? Note that I am not advocating speedy deletion in place of a AfD discussion, just curious that all. Thanks.--blue520 09:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought it said this explicitly somewhere, but I'm not finding it at the moment. Still, it's implicit in the following statement from WP:PROD: "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion." Since an article deleted by PROD can be "speedy restored" simply by someone objecting to its having been deleted, it stands to reason that the re-creation of a PRODded article should not be speedy deleted. I think I'll suggest adding this language explicitly to both WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hmm... Clarification really needs to be made. On deletion review under Proposed deletions: "Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.", it seems clear that CSD G4 should not be applied due to the "undeleted per the undeletion policy" part of CSD G4. But is a user recreating a article deleted via PROD any different from the same article being restored by a admin after being taken to taken to deletion review. I could see some users tempted to apply CSD G4 as WP:SNOW in the case of a user recreated article (after PROD).--blue520 10:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of PROD is that it's used for uncontroversial deletions. If someone goes to the trouble of re-creating an article that was not a speedy candidate the first time around, then obviously its deletion was controversial, and it should be taken to AFD where its merits can be discussed, rather than speedied under G4. G4 is (or ought to be) only for things that (1) were deleted after discussion at AFD or (2) were speediable the first time around and aren't any better the second time. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time respond. In regard to the original question I am now clear, and yes PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and (excluding the unforseen) CSD G4 should never be applied.--blue520 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

Hi Angr,

This has nothing to do with Celtic. :-) I just wanted to let you know that there is a new user out there, called Chinese Meat Dog, who's been deleting pages left and right. I have already reversed his vandalism of four pages. Pasquale 16:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked him indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your yoozful maps and Wikimedia Commons

Hi Angr! Just wrote an article on American English on the Dutch Wikipedia - it was about time, all of the other major Wikipedias have had it for ages...! For the phonology section I used the maps you display on you user page. I was as naive as to assume you'd placed them on Wikimedia Commons and faced the unlucky surprise that they weren't. I've uploaded all of them on commons now, under exactly the same file names. But perhaps you could put your pictures on commons immediately, unless you have a good reason not to do so? Obviously they're also interesting for non-native English speakers and thus for other wikis than en: ;-). Thanks a lot, Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad you like them! If you already put them on Commons, what's left for me to do? Angr (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Dutch version, and it looks like you're saying the cot/caught merger takes place in Anchorage but not elsewhere in Alaska. Actually, Anchorage is the only city in Alaska that there's data for. In all probability, it takes place throughout Alaska, but no one (to my knowledge) has done research anywhere else but Alaska. What is peculiar (and what you might want to mention explicitly) is that the cot/caught merger does not take place (at least not consistently) in San Francisco, but it does everywhere else in California and indeed the whole West. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angr, I said this just in case you ever create some new maps. I'll edit the article immediately. Actually, when writing the phonology section, I relied too much on your maps and read too little about it in the corresponding articles. How remarkable that the San Francisco dialect resists the cot-caught merger! Is that because of the large scale immigration in this city or should it be explained by the sociological fact that San Francisco is such an atypical place for California (often dubbed the 'most progressive' or 'most European' place in California or indeed in the US) that makes it residents want to distinguish their accent from those heard around it? Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with an active vandal?

Signz101 has repeatedly vandalized or blanked Greb. Would appreciate a short block, nothing more that I can do other than issue an empty final warning (can't follow through).

Blocked him for 24 hours. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete 40 Principles

I created this article without knowlege it had been deleted prior. I secured permission from the copyright holder to publish, and I think it is useful information that compliments TRIZ. Perhaps it would be approriate in just Inventive Principles or 40 Inventive Principles??? please advise. --phalseid 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate reason I deleted it is that it was an uncontested PROD. But apart from that there are good reasons to keep it deleted. For one thing, it's not an encyclopedia article about anything; it's more of a how-to guide, which is one thing Wikipedia is not. For another thing, it was a direct copy of something already existing at another website. You say you had permission to use it, but it makes more sense to just link to the external website. Permission to use copyrighted material has to be granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, not to the editor who copies it (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems). If there's to be an article 40 Principles it should be an article discussing the history and significance of the principles, not just a list of what they are. At this point, I just don't see any reason why a link to http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1997/07/b/ from TRIZ shouldn't be sufficient. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not know, thanks for the knowledge

Thank you for educating me. I really did not know. I have had experience deleting one article using Template AfD in three steps but no images and was asked to do so by the image authors who had none. I naturally assumed the procedure is the same. Thanks for the valuable insight.AshLin 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It always takes a while to learn the ropes. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Block

Why was the article about Rabbi Zvi Block deleted?

It was an uncontested PROD. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

Hello Angr, I just wanted to register my thanks to you for banging on in removing all the "Blurb" from Berlin. I may be wrong, but I perceive an "East Berlin point of view" bias in the articles. e.g. I think there should be an image of Gedächtniskirche, which is after all, an important touri-site and stark reminder of WW2. I´m not criticising the remodelling per se, I´m also very open to new ideas, unfortunately I think the article has become "faceless", lost its originality and "Urigkeit". I´d like your opinion on this too!!?? IsarSteve 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I was removing "blurb" (whatever that means), I just want to polish it up to Good Article status. I've added a pic of the Gedächtniskirche as well as a line mentioning it under "Famous sights". What else specifically do you wish it had for more "face", originality and Urigkeit? Angr (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blurb" to me means.. lots of words, meaning nothing.. There is a continual process going on right now of cutting this, cutting that, and we´ll end up with just the communist party manifesto!! lol. I´ve just noticed that all film references have been cut. A section that over time has drawn "strangers" i.e. not regulars, to make entries. I´m not sure if you´ve also noticed, but mostly all of the regular contributors have been "turned off". I think I must make an entry on Talk: Berlin to get some sort of concensus of where "Berlin" is going. It irritates me, because I feel I´m being negative... It´s a shame we don´t have a counter to see how many hits Berlin now has against Summer 2005. IsarSteve 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I`m going to wait until I´ve cooled down a bit before I mention something on Talk: Berlin

IsarSteve 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had Berlin on my watchlist for a month or two now, so I haven't seen the changes happen over time. But when I compare today's article with the version of 31 July 2005 I really do think there's been a vast improvement since then. The July 2005 article was made up largely of lists; probably less than half the article was complete sentences. And as for the cutting, well, of course it's unfortunate, but the article was until recently over 70 kB long and is still 67 kB long, which is simply too big. It's fine to mention something on the talk page if you're feeling frustrated, but I wish you would be more specific about what you think needs improvement. Just saying "the article has become 'faceless'" doesn't give much information about how to fix it. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rather than being negative, I have changed a few things today, unfortunately there is still so much waffle that it might take some time. It´s also a shame that the film list has been removed, I know films are quite important to US readers IsarSteve 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is still the link to List of films featuring Berlin, which can be cleaned up and expanded. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting! thanks, I didn´t know it existed! IsarSteve 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks once again for correcting my grammar, which I tend to neglect whilst chopping through the forest of "Terrestial viewing points" & the "Manor of Friedrichsfelde". I am just trying to highlight lots of things in the article that are not up-to-standard. Regarding Wowi, As a Gay man myself I really don´t have anything in principal against the use of the image.. but I want to be a bit controversial so as to get people´s attention and maybe their help at deleting all these dreadful sentences. Alles wird gut! IsarSteve 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags/tabs denoting which form of English to use

by the way, with your high-up WIKI connections, what do you think of the idea of having a tab withe the relevant UK/USA flag to denote which form of English should be used on each article on the English WIKI. It would make it easier for me (& maybe others) to remember to drop my/our "U"s in colour for instance and vice-versa for you. IsarSteve 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I don't have high-up Wiki connections. I think the idea of having some sort of tag identifying which spelling is to be used has been considered before, and rejected as too complicated to implement for too little benefit. Personally, I usually just do a quick read of the article with an eye to country-specific spellings and then use that. My problem more is that I have started a lot of articles about Irish, which by Wiki conventions should use the spellings used in Ireland, but since I'm the one starting the article, I use American spellings because I can't remember not to. Actually, I wish we could establish the Wikipedia-wide convention of using Canadian spelling, which is a nice compromise between the two, but given the comparatively small percentage of people to whom Canadian spelling comes naturally, it seems very unlikely to happen. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the Limburgic Wikipedia we have a template which marks the dialect in which an article, or a section of it, is written. When someone adds a few words or sentences to a certain alinea these words have to be put in the proper dialect, e.g. by the first author; see li:Sjabloon:Dialek. That's very necessary indeed since the dfferences between the Limburgic dialects are in fact quite broad. On the English Wikipedia however such a thing seems unfeasable and undesirable: the differences are much, much smaller and the number of contributors is much, much higher - a single article is often edited by so many different people that noone could ever control if the edits done obey the dialect/spelling template. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m for Canadian! IsarSteve 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sanssouci

Please see my post in reply to your question. Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test pages

All of the test pages except Portal:Germany/Test3 are currently unused. Portal:Germany/Test3 displays tomorrow's version of Portal:Germany, so I'd like to keep it around. I have just deleted the other test pages. Should I also delete the old "Featured" -> "Selected" redirects for some more housekeeping? The older versions of Portal:Germany fail anyway, so it won't make a big difference except for a cleaner namespace. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bode Museum

I enjoyed the article, which I saw you mentioned on the Visual Arts project. Tyrenius 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish language place names in the Gaeltachtaí

A chara,

Since last March, English language place names in the Gaeltachtaí no longer hold legal status in the Republic of Ireland. I propose that the articles of the Gaeltacht places be renamed to Irish as was done with the Carraroe article. I can go ahead and edit all of the aricles but I don't believe I have the power to rename them.

Le meas,

News source

Wikipedia naming conventions are to use the most commonly used name of something in English, which is not necessarily its official name. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the English be removed, simply that the English place name be redirected to the official Irish place name as was done with the Carraroe article by User:Jamesnp. I have since read the help file on moving articles and was wondering if you would sanction these moves if I went ahead with them?

If people still usually use the English names when speaking English, then the articles should use the English names, regardless of the official status. Are people in Connemara, when speaking English to each other, more likely to say "I'm going to Carraroe this afternoon" or "I'm going to An Cheathrú Rua this afternoon"? Are English speakers in the Rosses more likely to say "I went to Gweedore yesterday" or "I went to Gaoth Dobhair yesterday"? The answers to these questions tell you what the names of the Wikipedia articles should be. But there should definitely be redirects from all other names to the article itself. At any rate, if you do move from the English names to the Irish names, I won't revert you or anything like that. Whatever you do, be sure to use the "move" button, don't use cut and paste. If the move fails because of an existing article or redirect, let me know and I'll clear it up. Angr (t • c) 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

Hi, are you in Berlin? There's a meeting of en: Wikipedians in Berlin tonight if you're interested. Info under User:Lectonar/Berlin Meeting. Angr (t • c) 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, hope to see you there ;) ∴ here…♠ 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move; I still have a lot to larn, obviously :( Lectonar 14:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Null Problemo. The WP: prefix is just for shortcuts; technically there is no namespace WP:, and pages starting with it are strictly speaking in article space, and should always be redirects to something in Wikipedia: namespace. Angr (t • c) 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish given names

I will from my source when I've the time next week. Will add any other such useful sources as I can find. Remember, I'm a sick man, so with me these things take time. Sorry! Fergananim 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were sick, so I wasn't in a position to remember it until now. But I'll remember in the future! :-) Angr (t • c) 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chitika

Hi,

I searched for Chitika and found that the article doesn't exist. However when I saw the deletion log, I saw that you deleted it after it was PRODed. I am sure that Chitika is very notable and popular and should have a Wikipedia page for itself. If you are not convinced, try google searching for it and you will be convinced. The only reason I feel that it was deleted because of lack of content not actual lack of notability. If you are satisfied, can you please move it (the deleted article) to my Sandbox so that I can start working on it. I plan to create the article as soon as I can establish its notability. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, since it didn't had enough content in the first place, I would rather create the article from scratch. Just let me know if there are any serious issues regarding recreating the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick feedback

I had just left my request for translation at the German-American Bios page when i got your message. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, even though i got there on my own. :-) Catherineyronwode 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkpoint Charlie

Too quick on the draw, huh ? Just happened to be on patrol on Commons tonight... Cheers! :) Mu 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You old Prunes!!

Hi Angr! have you had an order from ABOVE to PRUNE everything in sight ...LOL

Now hear this:- Motzstraße is dear to my heart, as I lived more than 10 years on that street. You´re going to put a stake into it (My Heart), if you DELETE it...

Is it so necessary to merge it?? IsarSteve 13:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since both articles say practically the same thing, and each is barely more than a substub, why not? And merging isn't deleting, there'll still be a redirect. (And anyway, I have to punish you somehow for blowing us off on Tuesday.) Angr (t • c) 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, I saw the photos and I also noticed that you were given "a reminder", which I wasn´t.. will there be a next time? And have you got your assistants out right now, ploughing thru WiKI waiting to pounce on any substub, that´s just hanging around, doing nothing!! IsarSteve 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? I wasn't given a reminder. I had to remember on my own. Anyway, I'm sure there will be a next time. I only came across the two substubs because today I discovered {{Berlin-geo-stub}}, which I hadn't previously known about. Angr (t • c) 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, seriously now, maybe it would also be a good idea to merge categories Streets in Berlin with Squares in Berlin, I don´t think London differentiates and there aren´t that many entries in either.IsarSteve 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can try, but my experience at CSD is that good ideas are shot down while bad ideas are given broad support. Angr (t • c) 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was a dig at me ..well it hit the target!! IsarSteve 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. Are you active there? Angr (t • c) 15:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now I´m here... I was splitting my time cleaning up the "Balkon" and writing to you! IsarSteve 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, are you active at CSD? Angr (t • c) 15:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no I´m not ..but I know Dieter Schneider (since 1987/88) IsarSteve 16:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox comment

Hello, Just saw your comment about "never will be consensus to delete userboxes reflecting religious beliefs in an unoffensive manner". Alas, I don't think that is borne out in practice. If you look at the log at WP:DRV/U right now, there were two deletes as "CSD T1" for userboxes that said "This user is an Atheist." and "This user is a Christian." Both of which are written unoffensively, but were classed as "belief about a controversial topic" and speedied. My personal opinion is that CSD T1 is being interpreted too broadly to delete any template, and the resulting disagreement results in more division than the original template ever could. Regards, MartinRe 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions going on there prove my point exactly: there was no consensus to delete them, and there's no consensus to undelete them. Wikipedians are split about 50-50 on this, meaning consensus will never be reached. Angr (t • c) 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that T1 was rewritten in the last few days (with a broad consensus) to read "User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory." Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, T1 was rewritten in the last few days without any consensus, and the revert war between "New T1" and "T1 Classic" rages on as we speak. Angr (t • c) 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I see Grue reverting without consensus. I see discussion on the talk page favoring the change. Looks accepted to me. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert to Classic was from Xaosflux. The next was from Rory096. The next was from Grue, who was only reverted once. That's already three people prefer "T1 Classic". On the talk page, I see comments against the new wording from myself, Xaosflux, and Rory096, as well as agreement from Septentrionalis that there is no consensus here. Angr (t • c) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Christian

Your keep present version vote on the {{user Christian}} looks like you wanted it kept deleted but the text suggests you would like it undeleted. Please, consider correcting one or the other.

But it isn't deleted. Angr (t • c) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001

Today you "rm image: not fair use in this article."

Ok. Explain. It's 2001. The image is 2001. How, exactly, is this not fair use.? A pic on my talk page, I can understand. But a pic pertaining directly (or indirectly, as in this case) to the subject matter of the article would appear to be fair use. So, what's the deal? I'm not about to rush in and just do a revert . Oh, the temptation! So, how about something in the way of an explanation? -- Jason Palpatine 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]

The fair use template for Image:2001-starchild.jpg says "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." The image was being used in an article on the book, not the film. Angr (t • c) 21:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too literal. Revert. -- Jason Palpatine 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using copyrighted images in a way incompatible with their fair-use tag is a criterion for speedy deletion. Angr (t • c) 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001 is 2001. The differences you are citing are like 2 sides of the same coin. There are many editions of the book that contain images from the film. They are related, they are conected. They are pertenent. I belive the use of the image is -- in general -- a fair use. Even here. You're being too literal. Jason Palpatine 03:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Incompatible?" Like I said, You're being too literal. And I am not yelling at you. But I do want to be not ignored either -- which is an interpretation of your non-reply to may last post. Jason Palpatine 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you also did it with Colonization of the Moon. You may be right. But the image was related to the article indirectly -- egardless of how right you are or how wrong I am. Other encyclopedias are in the prectice of using such images in verious related articles. A lot of articles about sci-fi usually make mention of 2001 and include one or two images from it. etc, etc. Jason Palpatine 19:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being "too" literal; I'm following Wikipedia's fair use policy, which you may wish to review. With respect to your page 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) in particular, "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. ... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." Angr (t • c) 05:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Thanks for the word. Jason Palpatine 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for cleaning up the Irish language paragraph

V for Vendetta

Hello, I've never actually seen a policy or guideline that speaks to what the maximum amount of copyrighted pictures can be in an article and still qualify for fair use. I was wondering if you could share with me some of the documents you use to help you decide this. This is something that I'm really interested in, just because I plan on contributing to additional feature articles in the future. So far, this is the only guideline I've used [1]. Because of all the various policies, rules and wikiprojects, I find the whole FAC process quite interesting and painful at the same time. :) Cheers. --P-Chan 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most fair-use tags simply say "a limited number" without being specific as to what that means. The policy at Wikipedia:Fair use says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." In the case of V for Vendetta (film), my own opinion is that using the poster and the one image of the two main characters sitting together (plus the free image of Natalie Portman at the press conference, of course), should be sufficient. Angr (t • c) 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the key policy that we have to work with, then there seems to be room for interpretation. Looking over the other FA articles, from Blade Runner to November (film) to Ran (film), the number of copyrighted images seems to vary a lot. The Fair-use descriptions, however, are very different. I have no idea if the Fair-use descriptions are used in judging the number of FA allowed or not, but I think they would be a very important factor. Otherwise this would be a totally subjective process and would involve a lot of guessing. I'd love to speak with you about this further and hope we can keep an open dialogue on this. It's important to have a picture depicting the graphic novel in the article. It is a major line of discussion about this film and can be justified based on past FA articles. Starship Troopers for example, is a recent FA that shows a poter of the film, etc. Thanks. --P-Chan 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I know we can create a great fair-use justificiation, that I believe should be able to satisfy your standards).[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't allow precedent to take precedence here, if you'll pardon the pun. The earlier FA's should not have used so many copyrighted images either, but no one thought of it at the time. Angr (t • c) 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I move this conversation onto the FA nomination page? My post started as just a query about wikipolicy, but I think now that this is a valid discussion to have on that page as it speaks to the article in particular. (Might as well get it out in the open). Tell me what you think.--P-Chan 06:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go right ahead. Angr (t • c) 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"FA"? Jason Palpatine 22:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA = Featured article. Angr (t • c) 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I placed a reply on the FA page of V for Vendetta (film).--P-Chan 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angr

Angr, you're a smart guy, and a linguist and I was wondering, would you support a spelling reform like Cut Spelling?Cameron Nedland 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Reforming English spelling is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Angr (t • c) 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angr... I just wanted to say hello to you, as we haven´t had much contact recently..... and if I may gate crash on your party (with Cameron Nedland), just look at the mess the Germans have got into with their "Rechtschreibreform". All those minimalistic words... no let English stay as it is.. thanks again for the platform... you can delete me if you wish!! IsarSteve 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Intelligent Creatures article

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed the logo from the Intelligent Creatures article. I was wondering if there was some rule against logos? If so...why does ILM have a logo? Just a friendly question =)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davedibiase (talk • contribs) 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule against logos per se, but the IC logo didn't have a copyright tag. Any image that doesn't have a copyright tag can be deleted after seven days. I deleted the logo and then removed the link so the article wouldn't have a random red link on it. Angr (t • c) 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Germany MIA?

Hi!

Doesn't seem to be much doing on Germany, but, I followed you home anyway!<G>

Ah, 2-biz: I'd like to get an upgrade onto an EN from wiki DE. Anyone you can suggest to do translation? (Like You!)

re: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%BCringer_Wald vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringian_Forest

Thanks for your time, and nice to meetchya!

Best regards, FrankB 07:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you discovered Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' noticeboard and Wikipedia:German-English translation requests? The latter is the place to request a translation of de:Thüringer Wald. I'm really busy now and so can't do the translation, but I'm sure someone else there can. Angr (t • c) 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a word - No! Figured I'd find a link like that on the Wikiprojects Germany page.

Wish there was a way to get a list of all topics in space 'wikipedia'. Harump! Thanks! FrankB 06:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is. Go to Special:Allpages, select "Wikipedia" in the Namespace menu, and enter the first few letters of the first word you're looking for (e.g. Ger) in the "Display pages starting at" field. Angr (t • c) 07:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic?

Hi. Why did you delete the pictures I uploaded on Zaza's profile. I did not claim that they were mine, I cited all of them.
Soso

None of them had a correct copyright tag. Images without copyright tags get deleted after a week. Angr (t • c) 13:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Thanks, that image copyright's fine. SOrry I didn't ad it muself, I don't know how! Maybe you could give me some tips? Thanks

Lofty 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the recent fix on User:Elmo12456's userpage. I wasn't sure how much should go. 1,200 userboxes seemed excessive, but 40 (the number you recommended) sounds quite reasonable. Anyway, thanks.--Firsfron 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWEET

Yeah, lol.....the brown hair thing is all good.....thanks!

Ok

Ok, I didn't know. Sorry.--Fox Mccloud 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John W Henry

Why did you take the image from the article John W Henry Trade2tradewell 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it didn't have copyright information and had been tagged for over 7 days. Angr (t • c) 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German-English Translation request

As requested, I have translated (mostly, I have to go to bed, I'll finish tomorrow) the German article for Steglitz into English. I'm happy to be of help, and I hope you send any future German translation requests my way. Have a nice (fill in a time element appropriate to where you live), and a pleasant (whatever comes afterwards)! RyanG e rbil10 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished translating the article, and I have removed the request from the translations page. By the way, thank you for proofreading the article. Once again, I'm just glad to be of service. RyanG e rbil10 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords Promo Image

May I ask why the image on the Swords page was deleted? I thought I was following the rules, but I apologize if I was in error. King Bee 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have a copyright tag, and had been so labeled for over a week. Angr (t • c) 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought I changed it so that it did. Perhaps I was mistaken. King Bee 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only tag that was on it was {{Somewebsite}}, which isn't an adequate copyright tag. Angr (t • c) 07:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why me?

I was wondering why you deleted my photgraph of Altadena Drive from the images library. No warning! Just delete! Magi Media 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't get a warning, but the image had been tagged as lacking a copyright notice for more than a week. Usually the person (or bot) who tags the image also warns the uploader. I just came along a week or ten days later, saw the tag and deleted. Angr (t • c) 07:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury FM image

OK, you do that, then. PS., I notice that the way you signed your message is not the standard you get from clicking the signature button in an edit window. Is this exclusive to administrators, or can I do it too? Also, can you expand (t • c) so that they read as 'talk' and 'contribs'? It might also be an idea to change the talk link so that it gos direct to an edit window for people to write their messages in.--RichardHarrold 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (reply)[reply]

Locked Juan Cole Article

Being a new user, I am not familiar with the WP chain of command or process of appeal. I believe you are a higher up administrator. If you are not, then please put me in contact with someone who is.

This is not a matter of taking sides but for the good of the WP community. The following comment gives you the flavor of what is going on in a nutshell.

"Stub it and then block the stub. The damage is a continuing damage as new readers come to the site. In fact each day the damage progresses. It's just a matter of time until a national or international media picks up the news. Like they did the Cuba article. I can see the bylline. "NeoKon Likudniks hijack Juan Cole WP article and get it locked against balancing edits. Tar him as anti-semite b/c of his forceful and effective criticism of repressive Israeli occupation of Palestinians and American heavy handed Iraq occupation. They are also concerned about his moderating stance toward the Iran war stampede." Take Care!--Will314159 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)" The problem is the article is locked in a prejudical mode, no consensus can be achieved, yet the administrator in charge, who won't identify himself, won't stub the protected article and leaves the offending article up. Take Care!--Will314159 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

redhairedguy.jpg

Can you say a little more than just "restoring image" about this? How many images that are basically just "person with red hair" do we need on that page? Every image, multiplied by thousands of page loads, costs a nonzero amount of money--I know that's not a huge deal, but it says to me that there should be some content contributed beyond just "this is what red haired people look like." And given that this particular image is just a vanity snapshot of some wikipedian who wants his picture in the encyclopedia, why? I'm not going to revert, but it seems like it would be collegial to at least give a reason. · rodii · 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been collegial to give a reason for removing it in the first place. The edit summary "removing readheadedguy.jpg" isn't exactly informative either. The thing is, I've noticed that a lot of articles dealing with physical appearance at Wikipedia have a definite pro-woman bias when it comes to images. Before I first edited Red hair (here) it had four images of women and only one of a man. Similarly, before I first edited Brown hair (here) there were two women and no men. Before I first edited Hair color (here) there were three women and one man. Before I first edited Buttocks (here there was only one photograph of an actual human being (as opposed to an artwork), and it was of a woman. Also, in both Red hair and Hair color, the pictures that there were of men were of older men, while the pictures of women were of young women. I consider it a violation of the NPOV policy to have more pictures of women than men in articles on physical appearance, and to have pictures only of older men at that. If you think four pictures is too many for Red hair, then remove two pictures (one man and one woman). Angr (t • c) 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point--I think I actually wrote more in the edit summary but took it out because it was getting too long, but my brain retained the impression it was still in there, I guess. I don't agree with your claim of pro-woman bias, but I don't exactly disagree either--it doesn't seem like an issue to me, and it does to you, so OK. It was the quality of the picture that struck me as lame, and lately I've been seeing many articles with just too, too, too many pointless images--see Buu, for instance, or Enya, which seems to be treated as fan page (actually, Enya may be down to just four or five right now. · rodii · 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem with Buu and Enya in my opinion is not the number of images per se, it's the fact that all of those images were uploaded under a claim of "fair use". Wikipedia's fair-use policy says to use as few fair-use images as possible -- they should be used only for identification, or if a specific image is discussed in the article. They should not be used solely for decoration. Angr (t • c) 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a problem. I think using an article for decoration, or for purposes of fancruft, is also a problem, and on Buu, those problems, plus ownership issues on the part of some editors, all come together in a glorious trainwreck. · rodii · 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FICT should be modified to say that an article on a fictional place, character, etc. must establish the subject's notability in the real world (not just its own fictional world). Noncompliance can be grounds for deletion through AFD (not speedy deletion though). Angr (t • c) 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Image deletion

Is there a specific reason why you deleted the state-by-state comparison graphic for the U.S. in the tropical cyclone rainfall climatology page? A question from the original author and creator of the image. User Talk:thegreatdr 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image did not have a correct copyright tag and had been marked as such for more than a week. Angr (t • c) 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the picture?

Hello Angr! may i know why did you remove the picture from the article titled "Mirza Ghalib" as far as i remember, i did mention the source and author of the picture.

No, I'm afraid you didn't. All the image description said was that the author of the poem was Mirza Ghalib. There was no information about where you got the image from or what the copyright status of the image was. Angr (t • c) 21:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyllion (band)

Greetings Angr,

I am the creator of the page "Gwyllion (band)". Today I noticed that it had been deleted on May 9th. I had the page on my watchlist though, but I do not check that every day - I expected to receive an email when something dramatic such as deletion would occur. Anyway, so I noticed the deletion today, and I spent a few hours reading Wikipedia policies and workings. I decided perhaps it was deleted because there were no references, or possibly because it was indeed only very small. I spent some more time trying to figure out whether there was a way to undelete it, but I could not find any discussion about it in the Archived delete debates. Perhaps it was quickly deleted because it was so small. So then I remembered some text saying I should just 'be bold' and recreate the page and try to adhere to the policies better. So I spent some more time doing just that, making it look more structured, and adding some references.

Unfortunately for me, less than an hour later, the article was removed again... so I went to Deletion review, which is supposed to be where I can undo the deletion, but I have no idea how I am to start a discussion there. I could just go and edit section "23 May 2006" but perhaps that is not the way to do it... indeed, I am rather new to the moderation process at Wikipedia. I would muchly appreciate if you could help me out here :)

Thank you very much, - Sygmoral 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, the way to request deletion review is just as you said: edit section "23 May 2006" and give your reasons why you think the speedy deletion was unjustified. I deleted the article the first time under speedy criterion A7 ("no assertion of notability") as it did not seem to me the article made any claim that Gwyllion is a notable band, using the criteria at WP:MUSIC to determine what is considered notable. I deleted the article the second time under speedy criterion G4 ("re-creation of previously deleted content"). To be successful at deletion review you will need to convince at least half the people discussing the case that the original article did in fact assert notability per WP:MUSIC. Angr (t • c) 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imposters

I just found a whole lot of new user names which lok like AlexKarpman.132.70.50.117 10:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bbeye03.jpg deletion

Hi, was File:Bbeye03.jpg deleted due to lack of a copyright tag? If so then I am certain that it would qualify for {{logo}}. I was not aware that the image was up for deletion since there was no mention on the Big Brother page that used it. Is it possible to restore the image and put in the appropriate tag? I don't know any other way of getting the image back. Thanks. -- Barrylb 11:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, it was deleted for lack of a copyright tag. The only way to get the image back is to upload it again, giving not only an appropriate licensing tag but also the source. Angr (t • c) 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the image and I don't know where to get it. Isn't there a way of undeleting, especially if it has only just been deleted? Otherwise could you tell me who the original uploader was? I would like to put a message on their user page requesting the image. Isn't there a protocol in place that better notifies users of the image? Surely there should be a message put on the article rather than just the image itself which no-one will see. -- Barrylb 11:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once an image is deleted, it's gone for good. I could only undelete the text on the image description page, which wouldn't do you any good. The original uploader was User:Blahksheep, who said in his edit summary he got it from http://www.celebchaos.com. If an image is improperly tagged, the uploader may be notified as a courtesy, but this doesn't always happen (and didn't in this case). Otherwise the only notification is on the image itself. Angr (t • c) 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIRA-longwar.gif

Hello, was this image deleted for a reason? I created it myself. Fluffy999 13:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "I created it myself"? It was a photocopy from the IRA handbook. Angr (t • c) 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well im flattered you think that much of my skills in MSPaint, but shouldve maybe pointed out that I dont actually have access to the book. Only PIRA volunteers get the book. However, author TP Coogan was allowed to see a copy- thats where I saw the strategy- appearing in his book "The IRA" on page 696, a copy of which appears on the CAIN site here.

Should I just upload it again? Thanks. Fluffy999 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to just summarize the contents of that page in your own words rather than using the image. If you feel that the image is absolutely necessary, upload not the version that was here before, but the version you linked to above, providing that source. The tag to use is {{Non-free fair use in}} (using the page name as a parameter thus: {{fairusein|The Green Book (IRA training manual)}}. On the image description page you must also provide a detailed rationale explaining why this image is indispensable for the article. Angr (t • c) 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was wrong with the copy of the image that was there. Did you delete it by mistake or because it was infringing copyright or something? Can't I just upload it again- seems to make more sense, then I dont have to link to anything or generate 500 words on what it says. Fluffy999 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you do not own the copyright to that image. Copying it over yourself does not remove the original author's copyright, nor does it grant you the power to license it as you will. Even if you upload "your" version, it would have to be used under a fair-use claim with a rationale. So you might as well upload the original since you know where to find it. Or better yet, leave it out altogether and just summarize in your own words what it says. Angr (t • c) 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I didnt realise. Will talk it over with some of the Irish Admin and ask them for help deciding. Thank you for your assistance. Fluffy999 13:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Londoncommons.PNG

Hi, I noticed you removed Image:Londoncommons.PNG from the london commons article after the image was deleted. I was hoping you might be able to leave a messege on the article's talk page so the image's creator could understand the rational for the image deletion (provided you deleted the image... otherwise i should leave this messege on someone else's talk page!) Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply! have a good oneMike McGregor (Can) 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FUCCUP FUCCUP

You deleted the article FUCCUP

19:48, 8 May 2006 Angr deleted "FUCCUP" (G3 (pure vandalism))

Subsequently, User:Tessa@theToban wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCCUP

"It wasn't vandalism! It's a real conference!"

Please see http://fuccup69.blogspot.com/

This sounds plausible. Canadian University Press has a long tradition of referring to its regional organizations and conferences with names ending in CUP (for example, ARCUP is Atlantic Region, Canadian University Press), and so the name FUCCUP, while coarse, would be consistent with past naming practice. The user name User:Tessa@theToban sounds like one which would be chosen by a staff member at The Manitoban, the student newspaper at the University of Manitoba. Moreover, the 69 in the name apparently refers to CUP's 69th annual conference. I attended the 40th national conference of CUP in Halifax 28.5 years ago, but have no current involvement with Canadian University Press.

Could you please undelete the article?

Okay, I've undeleted it, but I'm also nominating it for deletion through AFD because I'm still not convinced it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article even if it real. Angr (t • c) 10:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images on my userpage

Hi Angr,

I'm sorry about that - I hadn't seen that part of your message. Had I done so, I would have removed them myself. Are there any images associated with Led Zeppelin or U2 that are public domain and therefore suitable for use on userpages? Also, I've decided that if i feel that there a userbox's wording isn't how I'd like it, I'll create one of my own using the format ((User:RichardHarrold/Template:name))--RichardHarrold 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (talk • contribs)[reply]

I don't know of any specifically, but you could try browsing the resources listed at Wikipedia:Free image resources and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources and see what you find. Another option is to see whether the German Wikipedia has pictures in their articles (de:Led Zeppelin, de:U2), because all images at the dewiki are freely licensed. Or take your camera along next time you go to a concert! Angr (t • c) 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderings?

I gave a fuck. =) I thought it was cool. King Bee 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Well, the page was getting too long anyway... Angr (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it too. · rodii · 14:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I brought it back! I seriously never thought anyone ever looked at the bottom of my user page. Angr (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! It's back! King Bee 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? Advertising?

You should look up such words before you insult people abusing both them and the term. Advertising is a purposeful activity by an interested party, normally commercial, spam is putting links to he szme thing all over the place, regardless whether it links in any logucal way. When I put ONE single link to a non-commercial, free site with which I never had any contact, that qualifies in no way for either category. I never heard how you think it could be anything but relevant to link Buttocks, which is illustrated exclusively with pictures of posteriors (in close up or not), to a site (RearEndz; technically it seems to link collections on different sites) which shows nothing but exactly such pictures, be it of celebrities. Nor how it could be advertising since the site sells or propagates aboslutely nothing. Fastifex 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site has absolutely no encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. WP:EL says sites that use extensive advertising should not be linked to, and that site, even if it is free itself, uses extensive advertising, including pop-ups. That site has no business at Buttocks. Take down the link to it now. Angr (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So by your crazy 'reasoning' even Google is banned ad infinitum since it had pop-ups?

I've never seen Google used in the "External links" section of an article. Angr (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee Flag

Why the removal of Tallahassee's flag? No explanation. 25px|USA Noles1984 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~It didn't have a copyright tag. Angr (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)~~ I take that back. The problem was it didn't have information on its source. It was tagged as being in public domain as a work of the U.S. Federal Government, but without a source there was no way to verify it. It's also really unlikely that the municipal flag of Tallahassee would be work of the Federal Government anyway. Angr (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category

Since you created it initially, do you have any idea of why Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Mistress Selina Kyle is now empty? Were there no sockpuppets after all? -Will Beback 04:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. No idea. It certainly wasn't empty when I created it. Angr (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall any of the entries I could track down who removed the category. I doubt the socks are in use, but I can'timagine why the category was removed. -Will Beback 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't remember any, but given this edit summary, Linuxbeak may be the person to talk to. Angr (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I may have created the wrong category. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mistress Selina Kyle, although it's a red link, has three names in it. Angr (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's caused by a misalignment of the sock puppet category and the sock puppeteer tag. Hmmm. -23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On my userpage you....

((fix typo :-))

Thank you -- Jason Palpatine 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neues Museum

Thanks for your work on Neues Museum. Is the translation of 'Kabinettsordre' as 'royal command' correct? (from second sentence in the Construction section, originally Zuvor hatte der König Stüler bereits mit Kabinettsordre vom 8. März 1841 mit der Planung beauftragt.) From your User Page it looks like you would know better than I (as my German is modern and more chemical ;-) ) Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's the correct translation, that's why I put  after it! I've had very little success finding the word "Kabinettsordre" in any of my reference materials, but in the few cases I found it by Googling the context seems to suggest it means some sort of command or commission from the king. Angr (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on fixing this. Sorry not to have seen your response (above) until now (I forgot to watch your Talk page) and also sorry I didn't realize that you did the original translation when I asked you to fix it (D'Oh!). I will make the bold change in Neues Museum and will also move the Building description up so the order matches the German article, and is more logical. Anyway, thanks again - btw, I am slightly jealous, I always liked visiting Berlin, it must be great to live there ;-) Ruhrfisch 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC#Georg Forster

I think I have adressed most of your objections. Please comment, and feel free to find new objections! Kusma (討論) 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Since you participated in the Templates for deletion discussion apropos of Template:Legal disclaimer, I think I ought to let you know that in my hasty cutting-and-pasting, I inadvertently removed part of my nomination, such that it didn’t fully enumerate the reasons for deletion and was syntactically troublesome in any event. The nomination, which read the template is used only twice (once in mainspace), its existence but absence from nearly every page to which it could be appended surely invites one salient objection from NDT, viz., that "The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits", ought to have begun with This template is self-referential and in any event in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates; inasmuch as; I've now appended the omitted portion. Since, notwithstanding the malformed nom, you supported delete, this change likely won’t affect your views, but I didn’t feel comfortable revising the nom without alerting those who had participated in the discussion. My apologies for my oversight. Cordially, Joe 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busty Heart gif

Hello, I'm just curious - why was the pic of Busty Heart crushing the can deleted? Because it was moving? Donmega60645 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it didn't list a source. Angr (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. Donmega60645 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

for a couple of weeks now, whenever I edit anything it is vandalised. IsarSteve 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, POV pushing isn't the same thing as vandalism. And I don't think the paragraph on the Airlift should be completely deleted, though maybe it could still use some NPOV-tweaking. Whoever it is seems to think saying the Nazis used the '36 Olympics for propaganda purposes is non-NPOV, and maybe it could use a little cleanup, but his suggestion of "Berlin arranged the 1936 Olympics" without further discussion is very weird. Angr (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree IsarSteve 08:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the image on Nick Oshiro's page?

I think the image looked good as it was, why delete it? It shows the person in question, which I think is perfectly reasonable. And to tell you the truth, I'm a bit pissed off at you aswell for doing it. Dark Hummingbird 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload an image, you get a message that says in large, colorful text "Your file will be deleted in one week unless you provide detailed information on both: 1. The source of the file ... 2. The copyright holder and the license of the file". Neither of the images had information on the copyright holder and the license of the file, so they got deleted. Angr (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload the file personally, only used it in that page. And its in the entire Static-X section so why only delete it there. And I'm sorry for getting angry at you, you were only doing your job. Dark Hummingbird 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]