User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 14

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

I noted that you said that you would support an AfD attempt for this article. I am currently trying to decide whether it is worth it to try. I am mostly trying to decide what is wrong with the article that can be presented to other voters. Specifically, I can think of a few things: fair use image violation, original research, speculation, off-topic (cites book for film synopsis), verging on patent nonsense, and innappropriate tone. All of those are well and good, but I don't know how to word that so that other won't dismiss the reasoning ("It's a film synopsis of one of the greatest films ever. Keep") What do you think? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should keep "patent nonsense" out of it, because it's nowhere near Wikipedia's definition of that. People will say the excessive use of fair-use images can be solved by removing them, deleting the whole article isn't necessary for that. I think an AFD should focus on the fact that it's original research (almost entirely one single user's personal interpretation) and that it's unencyclopedic: it's not an encyclopedia article about the film (we already have one), it's an extremely detailed summary of the film. We also have to point out that it's already been moved out of the main article, which was getting too long, or else people will vote "merge" into the main article. I'm also tempted to say it comes close to infringing the copyright of the film because it's so detailed no one who reads the article needs to see the film (at least as far as the plot is concerned, of course this synopsis is no replacement for the audiovisual atmosphere of the movie). Angr (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the language to use would be similar to the fair use argument: "The article's content infringes on the ability of the copyright holder to effectively market his work." So far I'm seeing WP:FU and WP:OR, anything else? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can think of. Angr (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What -- is -- your -- problem? Complaints were being made about the original article being too long and suggested to be split up. I acted on this notion and split the synopsiss section into an independent artcle per the recomendation. Now you people are talking about AfDing it! -- Jason Palpatine 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not an encyclopedia article. It doesn't belong in the main article, it doesn't belong as a separate article. I know you put a lot of work into it, but it belongs on your own website, not at Wikipedia. Angr (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Double groan. And groan yet again.

i

do

not

have

a

website

And a lot of the material was already in place BEFORE I came along.

Jason Palpatine 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Comparison of wiki farms. There are a lot of options. Angr (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you not only went over my head, you just left the Solar System. Comparison of wiki farms? Looked at the link. But, what is this supposed to be? There's nothing there pertaing to either of the articles. Jason Palpatine 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a response to your comment "i/do/not/have/a/website". Angr (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I'm completely in the dark now. Jason Palpatine 17:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- WP:OR?

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows:

The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" [1]

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history. [2]

There is none. Jason Palpatine 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the content there is based on previously published research by other people, the article needs to do a much better job of showing that. It also needs to be written in the tone of an encyclopedia article reporting on other people's research, along the lines of "Smith has argued XYZ, while Jones has countered ABC". Angr (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From where I stand (i.e. my perspective) it does. The article has a majority of contributions by me, true, but much (more than half) was there before I did the split.

For the umpteenth time -- my sources:

Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
the souvener progam to the movie
the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

-- Jason Palpatine speak your mind 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't list them here, list them in the article. Use footnotes to indicate what idea came from which source. Use {{cite book}} for proper bibliographical citation style. Angr (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You --"Contested PROD. Original reasoning was "Personal essay and interpration of film. This article violates core policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by definition." To that I would add that the large number of "fair use" images, as well as the fact that every single scene of the film is described in detail, infringes on the copyright of the film. The content of this article has been moved out of 2001: A space Odyssey (film) because the main article is too long. For this reason (and because the content itself is inappropriate per the above arguments), merging the content back into the main article is not a viable option. Delete Angr (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)"

Given the arguments above "the above arguments," why are you saying OR? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

Because you still haven't shown that the analyses you give come from other people. Simply listing some reference works without saying who says what isn't sufficient. My Ph.D. thesis had a lot of sources cited, but it was still original research. Angr (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The souces were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recomended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them here inappropriate. In response to your above arguments, have now listed them with the article. But I am limited -- I do not know/comprehend the procedure to set up references links. (I've been to the instuctions page and it made me dizzy) Also, as this article is a description of the film events, the film itself IS the primary souce and by the title referenced. Now what? -- Jason Palpatine 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

I didn't care much for your answer. -- Jason Palpatine 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see

The results are in and even though I apparently won the popular vote you still got your way.

I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED!

As for me, I'm going to throw up. -- Jason Palpatine 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For removing 10000+ unencyclopedically unworthy pages from Wikipedia and helping to keep the encyclopedia in a healthy state - As a new admin, I can certainly attest to the unappetizing nature of this hard work (clearing CSD). Regards, Blnguyen

Is this your first barnstar? You've been keeping well hidden! Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No, I've gotten others. I just don't keep them on display. Angr (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

Thanks for improving some of the articles on Berlin, among which some of which I started. I have just been there, which made me want to start articles about the buildings being restored or rebuilt along Unter den Linden. I was thinking about starting an article about the now destroyed building of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of East Germany, which can be seen on your picture from the Fernsehturm, but it's diffficult to find sources.Hektor 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (deleted) Image:Bakisair.jpg

Hi, I've just noticed that you removed the deleted Image:Bakisair.jpg, an image which I originally uploaded, from the Bâkî article.

This is perfectly fine, insofar as the image no longer exists on Wikipedia. However, what I would like to know is, why was it deleted? I was never notified of the deletion (as I believe I should have been for an image which I uploaded), and anyhow full source information was given for the image, and the image was in any case long out of copyright (being approximately 400 years old). If you don't know the answer to why it was deleted, could you possibly point me to a place where I could find out?

Cheers. —Saposcat 12:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have a copyright tag. Images without copyright tags can be deleted within 7 days of being labeled as lacking a copyright tag. Notifying the uploader upon labeling the image as lacking a copyright tag is a courtesy that isn't observed as often as it should be. If it was in the public domain by virtue of being that old, it should have had {{PD-old}} on it. As I recall, the source info said what book the image was scanned from, but not who the original artist was, so there was no way to determine whether the image was really as old as it looked or whether it was a recent painting made in an old-fashioned style. You're welcome to upload it again, but this time it would be better to give the original artist's name and dates (with a link if he has an article on Wikipedia) in addition to the book the image was scanned from. And of course add the {{PD-old}} tag! Angr (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy reply.

Since the image is gone now, and I cannot remember all the way back to March 31, I cannot confirm this, but I doubt that it lacked some sort of copyright tag (though perhaps I chose a slightly wrong one from the drop-down list) inasmuch as, as you can perhaps induce from my log, I am always assiduous in the placing of copyright tags (though again, occasionally I may choose a slightly wrong tag from the somewhat confusing list, I admit).

As for the original artist, he/she is unknown, as were the vast majority of artists at that time and place. However, it was most definitely not "a recent painting made in an old-fashioned style".

I will be uploading it again, and will be careful to place the {{PD-old}} tag (though again, I doubt that I failed to do so the first time). Of course, I won't be putting the artist's name and dates (perhaps "Artist unknown" or "Anonymous" would do), for the very clear reasons stated above. —Saposcat 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you really did forget that one time. You remembered the source but not the tag. All you wrote was "Source: Şentürk, Ahmet Atilla. Osmanlı Şiiri Antolojisi. p. 438. ISBN 975-08-0163-6." There was no copyright tag at all. Angr (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. So it goes. Consider me warned to be even more careful in the future. Sorry to be so bothersome. —Saposcat 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're considerably less abusive than many people who find their images have been deleted for not having a copyright tag! (Just look through earlier messages on this page and in my talk page archives!) Angr (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

My account User talk:Hoof38 has just recently been blocked, because someone mistakenly thought it was a sockpuppet. Since I've just recently created an account here and haven't used any sockpuppets, I request that it be unblocked as soon as possible. 205.188.116.70 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block and the suspicion of sockpuppetry, but have asked the blocking admin to elaborate on his reasons. Hoof38 created pandigital number articles similar to what caused a lot of sockpuppet-infested disruption at MfD recently, and I guess there's even more reason than that for the block. Kusma (討論) 15:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you support the block? I haven't done any vandalism. I've fixed the problem with the God article. Why then do you support a block? Are you just disrespectful or something? 205.188.116.202 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Hi there. I've just noticed that Image:Orlandobloom-.jpg has been deleted. I can't remember what this image looked like or which article it was in. Can you help? Also, do you have a link to the WP:IfD page about this images? It would help if the entry in the deletion log had a link to the WP:IfD archive (if there is one). Also, when I scanned the Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images page, this one showed up as a blank box - I don't have these images on my watchlist, is there a way to do this? Thanks. Carcharoth 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't an IFD; it was deleted for not having a source and being so tagged for at least 7 days (speedy criterion I4). You can watch images the same way you watch any other page: just click "watch" on the image description page, and if someone adds a tag (such as "no source" or "no copyright tag") it will show up on your watchlist. Angr (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request for the Insert toolbox

Hi, I am an admin at Hindi wiki, but not at English. I have an urgent request: Please add certain characters to the English wiki's Insert toolbox. They are very urgent and are required again and again for India related articles, which are in thousands. The characters are IAST: ṛ Ṛ ṃ Ṃ ṭ Ṭ ḍ Ḍ ṇ Ṇ ṣ Ṣ (the minimum set; there are some more), and IPA: t̪ d̪ n̪ (or simply the subscrit ̪ for the dental consonants, and a suitable superscrit tilda that can be placed on any vowel-sign to indicate nasalization). It is good to find a linguist here--I too have linguistics as a hobby. It pains me very much that languages with few thousands of active speakers have filled up half of the insert box, but the ones with hundreds of millions of speakers (like Hindi) dont have any place yet. I hope you will understand.Cygnus_hansa 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Translation

I've come back from WikiBreak and one of the first things I did was to take your request to translate the Wilhelm Hensel article, which you requested for translation. I usually pick articles which have no corresponding English version, but since I wrote his sister's article, I made an exception. I'll let you know when I'm finished. Happy to be of help, RyanG e rbil10 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the translation, I hope you find it satisfactory. By the way, thanks for your proofreading. Happy to be of help, RyanG e rbil10 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PavelThong.JPG

I apologise for not providing the image's source! I'm not entirely sure how to classify it, since I scanned the image from a publication that promotes and advertises underwear, but I don't have a subscription to it (it was a one-time affair), so I have no recollection of the publication's name because I only kept a few images of my liking and discarded the rest. Perhaps a fair use tag would be more appropriate? Or I could replace the image in question with one possessing a known source. Thank you for notifying me of my mistake! I didn't intend to violate any rules. Jiří 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to use an image with a known source. Angr (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the new image is more acceptable! Jiří 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder

you have another long night in front of you!! things are edited without thought, the talk page is never read?? > but I suppose, people don´t always read the Bible from page 1 either!!LOL IsarSteve 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a long night in front of me, I'm going to bed now. First I have to revert POV pushing on Berlin, then again at History of Christianity and homosexuality. I'm exhausted. G'night! Angr (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: incorrect image tagging on Megadeth image

So now you've met Emperador Lord Fenix. It would be nice, if you had a spare moment that is, to review some of the other edits/uploads of that particular user. I gave up trying communicate with him a long time ago. He uploaded a raft of images from photobucket and scattered them throughout the Megadeth article. Over the past months his edits have been rv'd by many users and the talk page concensus is that his additions are not wanted. But to no avail. Many attempts have been made to reason with him but he ignores them and keeps replacing his pics. He has ben blocked for 3RR at least once for doing that. There is an anon IP that shows up periodically with similar edits to his. An ARIN lookup indicates that the IP is located in the Caribbean.(and I am just assuming that it's the same user based on the edit history...mainly adding Spanish spam links) Perhaps it is a simple language issue? I am not sure. It woud be nice to have an admin "take" on what should be done. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he continually uploads images with bogus licenses, after being warned not to, he can be blocked for doing that. Some admins will block people just for being a PITA (falls under the heading "exhausting the community's patience"), but I personally do that very rarely. If there's a fair number of people getting annoyed by his behavior, I'd recommend starting an RFC to get some outside views. Angr (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I wouldn't normally take note of his edits but that page is in my watchlist and pops up quite frequently in my VandalProof window. His edits are sporadic sometimes only 1 day a week. There's lots of Users/Anons who comment on him. If I see it turning into a drawn out edit war, I'll recommend an RfC. Not sure if that'll make a difference. Up to now he doesn't seem to adhere to any Wiki-policies. Take care! Anger22 12:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on the user in question. He returned today and, as expected, rv'd against concensus on the the main article. He also removed a copyvio tag from an uploaded image. I tried reading his explaination on the image...it is very poorly written. To my best guess the user believes that the owner of the photobucket "album" is actually the photographer who took the photo.(which is highly unlikely) My suspicions, based on what is written, is that English is not the user's first language. So far his edits have not been rv'd...I expect they will be sooner or later. I am not sure an RfC on this would make much difference. He has not shown any respect towards too many Wiki-policies up to this point. It's too bad as some of his contributions have been semi-valid. Is there a spanish speaking administrator(as mentioned above...that's just a guess based on similar IP edits) who can reason with the user so that he doesn't alienate himself completely? Just wondering. Anger22 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one off the top of my head, but I doubt it makes a difference. I suspect he doesn't want to understand why the images are not acceptable, and telling him so in Spanish isn't going to change that. Angr (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image categories on CSD

When I was plowing through CSD I first took these literaly, as nominations for deleting the category, as it was not orphaned, I delisted. Feel free to readd. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've done it

I've decided to take on a translation you requested, Berlin-Friedrichstadt. Because the article is so long, it could take me as long as two weeks, working day and night, pulling my hair out and missing sleep, snapping at my family members, and ignoring my friends, family, feeding, and general hygiene to complete it. I'll let you when I'm done. Happy to be of service, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to make me feel guilty, it isn't working. I spend all day translating far more boring documents than that out of German, and here at Wikipedia I have a translation project of my own to work on! Nevertheless, thanks for your great work! :-) Angr (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done about half of the article, but it's driving me nuts to do nothing on Wikipedia but translate that one article. I think I'll have to leave off it for a few days so I don't lose my WikiFocus entirely. If you want, let me know what you think about the parts I've already done. Thanks, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've finished! :) :) :) :) The article is here. Happy to be of service, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Angr (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cape Town City Flag

Hi

I understand the position of Wikipedia Commons. For that reason, I have uploaded the image to en.wikipedia.

Please let me know if there are any problems. -- Chris Lester ^talk 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

people alleged to be gay

why do you think this is unencyclopedic?

For the reasons I outlined at CFD. Angr (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted the Dialect Images i put?

Dialects are regional for example:just because people from another region lives or tours another place doesn't mean the whole thing would change.

They were deleted because they didn't have proper copyright information. Wikipedia cannot use images "by permission", because Wikipedia is comprised of free content which must be reusable by others, even for commercial purposes. If the author gives Wikipedia permission to use his images, that permission doesn't extend to "downstream" users, so Wikipedia policy is not to use copyrighted images by permission. Angr (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAVE in Anglic languages article

I invite you to participate in the discussion of having AAVE in the Anglic languages article. Please participate. -- Crushti 01:01 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo contests

Hi! Since you are one of the people who were very active in the contest for a new Wikisource logo over here, I thought you might be interested in the contests for a meta:logo for Incubator and a meta:New logo for Wiktionary. I'd love to see some proposals from you or simply read what you think about this. =] Looking forward to your participation! —Nightst a llion (?) 06:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translate German?

I have been recommended by a friend to look up Harald Wood, a German philosopher and one of the leading lights on PanDeism, and I can see his webpage but I can not TRANSLATE it!! It comes out in terms that have little or no meaning to me... Please tell me what the page [3] says about PanDeism.... the German word is Pan Deismus, I will be most grateful!!

//// Pacific PanDeist 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I googled the word and this page looks prmising too [4]- can you tell me what it says about Pan Deismus!! This too please [5], just the one line

//// Pacific PanDeist 02:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else says they will do the job, so forget about it, thanks anyway!!

//// Pacific PanDeist * 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trick question?

This is kind of very belated, but still... What the heck did you mean over at Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#National_Security_Archive?? I can't make sense of your question. Lupo 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't? You answered it adequately, though! Angr (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing and allowing

you answered my question in the image help place. the guy wrote this on his website:

"It's okay to print the pictures for personal use, if you want to make a t-shirt, birthday card or desktop wallpaper. But DON'T SELL THEM! If you show pictures on the internet (homepages, blogs, myspace-accounts, message boards), please ALWAYS give me credit! That's all I'm asking for, just add a little note, that the pictures were created on my website. If you want to use the pictures for bigger projects (like movies) please write me a mail about it."

If I email the person asking if I can have it on wikipedia, and he says yes, would I then be allowed to use the image? As I am still a n00b to wikipedia, I would really appreciate it if you would post in my talk. Thanks! --ObiBinks 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job!

Good job, Angr, for your quick wits helped prevent vandalism to Winnie The Pooh!-- 陈鼎翔贡献和 CCD 維基和平 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Question

Dear Mr. Angr,
I am Soso from Georgia (Europe) and I would like to ask you if it is ok to use html tags to create an article. For example to use < table > ....</ table > tag instead of using a typical wikipedia infobox. I am not familiar with the wikipedia system yet and please write if you find time for it.
Regards
Sosomk 11:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can use traditional HTML tables if you like, but if you go to one of the links listed at Help:Table#External links you'll be able to convert an HTML table to a wiki markup table automatically. See also Wikipedia:How to use tables for how to use the wiki markup syntax for creating tables. Angr (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Mr. Angr. The online conversion thing looks great.Sosomk 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inupiaq

An anonymous user created the legitimate text in ik:Iqsrabutilik within the last little bit, meaning that there is indeed potential users. Does this effect your view of the project? -- Zanimum 14:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. New projects have to have at least ten fluent editors before they can be started; I see no reason to hold Inupiaq to a lower standard. Angr (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I4 deletions...

Hi, just wanted to mention that I think you should use a little bit of dicression when speedying stuff under I4, sometimes the images are very easy to identify and fix (albumcovers logos etc), the uploader may simply have picked the "don't know" option because they are not familiar with Wikipedia or whatever. Deleting them is perfectly in line with policy naturaly, but IMHO it's only common sense to salvage things that can be fixed even if they technicaly fulfill a speedy deletion criterea. We should not spend hours investigating things naturaly, but if you see a logo, albumcover, screenshot and simmilar tagged as no license/source take a few seconds to check the article they where used on, 9 times out of 10 it takes no effort at all to identify the primary source source (logo/cover/screenshot of/from X) and apply the corect tag. You are not obligated to fix such images naturaly, but you are not obligated to delete them either, so if something looks salvagable but you don't feel like looking into it right then consider just skipping it and leave it for someone else to sort out rater than just deleting.

The reason I mention it is that I fixed the tagging and added source to Image:Songs In The Key Of Eh!.jpg and removed the "no license" tag (it was an albumcover) only to have you speedy delete it 8 minutes later as I4. Now I'm not blaming you for not noticing my edit, you probably opened a bunch of tabs and worked your way though them, I do the same myself (think that may be worth a bug report, you should get a warning if you hit the delete button if the page have been edited since you loaded it). However as I mentioned that image was an example of something that is blatantly easy to fix without resorting to deletion. Takes a wee bit longer, but "unnessesary" deletions often anoy people even if they are done by following policy to the letter. Just a thought. --Sherool (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it sounds like I'm implying that you don't use good judgement when processing image deletions, a quick glance at your contribs indicates that you do. That one example probably gave me a slightly bad "first impression" of you, and when I start typing a message I tend to get long winded and over explain things (might even come across as patronising, sorry if I do). Still a reminder to think twise defore deleting never hurt I guess, hope I can remember to do it myself too :P --Sherool (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, although in the case of "Songs In The Key Of Eh!" I notice you still didn't add a source even though you added a copyright tag, so technically it was still speediable. I do use discretion when it comes to images that are both (1) used in articles and (2) pretty obviously user-made, in which case I will replace the "unsourced" or "unlicensed" tag with {{GFDL-presumed}}. But when it comes to fair use images, I'd rather just delete them than spend time tracking down their source and the appropriate fair-use tag, especially since if I do, then I'm the one responsible for writing a fair-use rationale. And since I personally am opposed to the presence of fair-use images on Wikipedia anyway, I'm really not inclined to do that! Angr (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American English

"'myriad Native American' isn't the name of a language" Oops... :) Quite right. Thanks! --Cultural Freedom talk 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthographic uber-pedantry

Rosa-Luxemburg-Strasse and Ebertstrasse are not incorrect spellings. They are the correct spellings written in the standard Roman alphabet. The German digraph "ß" is not used in English, and this is the English Wikipedia. Adam 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are incorrect spellings, because the streets have only German names. They have no names in English, so English spelling conventions are irrelevant. Angr (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very tiresome, and a typical example of Wikipedia competitive uber-pedantry. There is only one spelling of "strasse" - s-t-r-a-s-s-e. This is not a matter of spelling, it is solely a question of how letters are written. The use of "β" for "ss" is a German orthographic convention, not a different spelling. It is not a convention used outside Germany and Austria, and is not recognised by the great majority of English-readers. They will read it as "strabe." Using it is an insult to readers and is just a form of showing off by Wikipedia editors. Arguing for the use of "β" in the English Wikipedia on the grounds that "they write it that way in Germany" is the same as arguing that Beijing ought to be written "北京" because they write it that way in China. Or perhaps we ought to write all German placenames in Gothic script? Adam 02:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here. Just happened to notice this discussion. I happen to be a translator, scholar of various German topics, and someone familiar with the publishing world. Trust me: you're both correct (and incorrect). Transliteration conventions are matters of "house style" in the publishing world. Scientific American, for example, actually does use Chinese characters for the names of its Chinese authors (which I find bizarre). Other publishing houses (though not many) won't even accept naïve (even though it's in Webster's and most British dictionaries). "β" is somewhere between Chinese characters and "ï". The vast majority of academic publishers, especially when publishing books about things German, would spell Ebertstraβe "Ebertstraβe". Many (if not most -- not sure here) non-academic publishers would spell it with the double-s. So... this matter should perhaps be brought up for discussion in one of WP's policy forums in order to set Wikipedia's "house style". --Cultural Freedom talk 07:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's clear Wikipedia should follow the example of academic publishers then. Wikipedia is not about pandering to the lowest common denominator. Until Adam deleted it, there was a note at the top saying "The title of this article contains the character ß. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Ebertstrasse." Because there's a link to ß, people unfamiliar with that character can click on it and read all about it, and will have learned something new! (That is the point of an encyclopedia, isn't it?) Having it at Ebertstrasse simply increases ignorance, because that is not the street's name in English (the English name, if it had one, would be Ebert Street) or German (except in Switzerland). Angr (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very reasonable suggestion. I'm new enough here that I'm not sure how to make this (recommended/suggested) policy, but putting a line with your recommendations somewhere other than your user page would save others the trouble of reviewing this issue. Best, Cultural Freedom talk 08:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now created duplicate articles, one with strasse and one with strabe. This is contrary to policy. You are being extremely stupid. Why is it that uber-pedantry and stupidity of this kind frequently go together? Adam 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, misspelling article titles and then tenaciously clinging to them isn't enough for you, now you have to resort to personal attacks too? Angr (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am interfering here. We cannot have many articles on the same topic. But in my opinion we should use the ß in these titles. I am suggesting a move at Wilhelmstrasse, I chose that article as it seemed to have the most content. Stefán Ingi 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my pennyworth... Wikipedia is not an academic publication. Talk of "lowest common denominator" is unecessarily derogatory. This is supposed to be a publication accessible to all, not just the educated. Using the "β" is unnecessarily confusing to an English-language audience. --Dweller 11:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that educates. By using the {{foreignchar}} template at the top of the article, the reader finds a link to the article about ß, where he can learn what it means if he doesn't already know. Using the "ss" incorrectly because you think it's "less confusing" is simply insulting to readers' intelligence. User:Angr 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument and am happy to leave it that I disagree ;-) Presumably you would leave two articles, one at Wilhelmstraße and one at Wilhelmstrasse, as I wouldn't have a clue how to search for Wilhelmstraße (I had to copy/paste to get the ß symbol). --Dweller 11:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need two articles, there can be a redirect from Wilhelmstrasse to Wilhelmstraße. User:Angr 11:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry <smacks head> that's what I meant! :-) --Dweller 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move of an article

Can you move the article oi (digraph to oi (digraph)? I accidentally made a typo in its title and my account's not old enough to move pages. Voortle 02:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bears

Hi Angr, nice touch about the left-handedness thing. I'd never heard it before, but it's an interesting tidbit, and I'm glad there's a way to keep it in the article. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ==IPA==

Assuming that we're talking about this, they show the relative positions of the vowels in the mouth: front to back and open to closed. HenryFlower 09:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's what I was talking bout. But what bout the unconnected vowels?

iooiioioo@hotmail.com

Thanks

24.70.95.203 22:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect up for deletion

I've nominated the redirect Bad-lad and trap-bath splits and æ-tensing for WP:RFD. Please participate in the discussion. Do you have any idea of why this redirect exists? Voortle 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC that was once, briefly, the name of the article. Angr (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that then explains why we have it. We don't need to keep it however, as no one's going to type in all three of those features in one search. The redirect presently serves no purpose and should be deleted. Voortle 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European languages

Hey Angr. You reverted my edit to the article saying that the "previous wording was better". I don't understand how? The majority of the population in South Asia speaks Hindi, Urdu, Bengali and several other Indo-European languages like Gujarati and Punjabi. Also, isn't Indian subcontinent a better term than South Asia in this case as it explains the term Indo-European languages? Please explain your viewpoint and reason for revert. --Incman|वार्ता 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that your wording, "most of the major languages of Europe and the Indian subcontinent, as well as many in Southwest Asia and Central Asia" downplays both the importance of the Dravidian languages in India and the importance of the Iranian languages in the Indo-European family. Angr (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish language: It might be obvious to you that it might be named as Irish, but it ain't obvious to me. 86.42.140.108 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukh Bose

Please will you speedy this unpleasant attack.

--Dweller 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Dweller 11:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Next time, you can just put the {{db-attack}} template on such pages. User:Angr 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RC patrol

Hope you don't mind being "pointed" at users by me, further to my patrolling of RC.

Please take a look at Harvardlaw (talk · contribs) and possible sockpuppet 69.10.123.4 (talk · contribs). Thanks, --Dweller 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Dunno why I didn't think of that when the square brackets didn't work for me <grins> --Dweller 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional vocabularies of American English

Hi Angr, JackLumber here, about to start a much needed improvement, repair, and remodeling of the above-mentioned article. My first edit will only change the layout, shucking off the table format (which makes the page very hard to maintain), with no content changes for the sake of clarity. But in the meantime I will factor the regional tables into main dialect areas—as you know, such a classification can be questionable anyway you slice it; my idea is New England, Mid-Atlantic, North, Midland, South, and West, just not to stray too far from American English regional differences, although the distribution pattern of lexical and phonological differences is definitely not the same. Alternately we can completely get rid of the "Midland" (somewhat troublesome) and lay out a more "geographical" classification. Anyways, drop by if you got the time and please let me know what you would change or change it yourself so that I can start cleaning up the beast. Thanks, JackLumber. 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmstrasse

By what right do you delete an original photo taken by me, and clearly tagged as such? Unless you have a very good excuse I will propose that you be blocked for vandalism. Adam 06:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it. I simply removed the red link from the page (which the admin who deleted it should have done himself). In the future, please check the deletion log before making accusations and threats. Please also re-read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. User:Angr 09:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not you who deleted the photo, I apologise. What and where is the deletion log? Adam 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log is the log of everything that's been deleted. It's located at Special:Log/delete. You can type in the name of the page you're looking for in the Title: field and click "Go" to find the circumstances of its deletion. User:Angr 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seaman Silver.jpg

I noticed you deleted the article David Jason Silver a few days ago (June 19), which was previously deleted. I was wondering if you'd take a gander at Image:Seaman Silver.jpg. My guess is that it has the same content. I took the liberty of removing some material copied in from a newspaper as copyvio, which has been in the page since its creation. Many thanks, -TeaDrinker 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German articles

I see you are determined to start a whole series of edit wars around the writing of German names. You have no right to do this, since there is no Wikipedia policy requiring that German names be written using the [symbol which is not on my keyboard] rather than the double-s. This seems to me an incredibly petty thing to have an edit war over, but if that is your desire that is what will happen. Adam 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you even write articles on German topics if you can't be bothered to spell them correctly? The ß character is the insert box below the edit box, so it doesn't have to be on your keyboard. User:Angr 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of album covers

Please see my response to you at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Album and single covers implicitly state a source. I recommend that you read the full decision I cited and quoted from, since it should suffice to clarify what fair use law actually says about such matters, as well as many of the misunderstandings that often crop up here on Wikipedia. You'll also find many of the decisions that one mentions here on Wikipedia and those are also worth reading if you'd like to learn more about fair use law. Jamesday 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh language

rv: the short vowel is only "half close" (same height as ɪ and ʊ)

You're quite right. My mistake. garik 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA tones for IPA transcription of Kaba Ma Kyei

Hi. Can you add the IPA tones for the IPA transcription of the lyrics of the Burmese national anthem (at Kaba Ma Kyei), and correct it if I made mistakes (I just adapted the IPA from [6])? And, is there any way that the current image (Image:Kabamakyei.png) can be deleted so that the image on WikiCommons will appear? The current image has spelling errors. Thanks. Hintha 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted the local image, so the one on Commons is being used now. Adding the tones will take a while, so I'll try to do it over the weekend when I get some time. User:Angr 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your query on Talk:Chiranjeevi

10 lakh people is one million, i.e. 10,00,000. In India, we are taught about lakhs and crores and i had a tough time in grasping the concepts of million and billion ;). btw, ten million makes one crore and so, 100 crore makes one billion. --Gurubrahma 13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! User:Angr 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange quote.

This is going to sound strange, but could I ask you to leave a quote that was in all caps that you changed back to the way it was? The person said the most outrageous thing I had ever heard and said so with all caps, no sources, proof, ect. You did them a favor by correcting their grammar, but they have little. Posters should be aware of the outrageous saying and the fact that the person felt the need to yell it. I gave it its own section so that other posters could challenge the theory as well. Originally I was hoping for clean up on the page since some posts have gotten hideously off-topic. Maybe all of the topics should go behind the "old page" archive and leave way for new ones?

I didn't correct grammar, all I did was change it from ALL CAPS SCREAMING to lower-case. I agree that what he said is preposterous, but it's preposterous from its content, not from its style. It's customary to archive old talk on discussion pages, as I have done, but it's not polite to archive threads where the most recent post is less than a few weeks old. User:Angr 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is actually a she (if that makes it anymore confusing) and the "blondes vs. albinos" topic is a month old, I was the last person to post. I honestly won't get offended if you move it, I'm personally sick of this person not dropping the subject and telling me that blondes are albinos. It's one of many posts that does not help the actual article itself.

The best response to trolling is to ignore it. User:Angr 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words - Smacky

Shouldn't happen again. Thansk for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 21:23 25 June 2006 (GMT).

Burmese language in Burmese

Hey. I changed the spelling of File:Bscript bamasa.png to File:MyanmaSa.png in Burmese because the former is infrequently seen in writings (i.e. newspapers and official publications even prior to 1989). I can't explain it, but people literate in Burmese just inherently know it (File:MyanmaSa.png) can be pronounced two ways. I'm not sure if I explained that adequately in the "Diglossia" section of the Burmese language article (I can't find a source to cite that). Also, I don't know whether images or Unicode should be used to display all of the Burmese text, because Burmese Unicode is still in development, and requires installation of several items. Can you help me? Thanks. Hintha 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use Unicode for most purposes, but occasionally using images for important words (like "Burmese" in the Burmese language article) is OK. But I wouldn't go through that article an make an image for every single word being used in an example! As for the opening sentence, I think it's probably least confusing to have both spellings, but if mranma ca is more commonly written than ba.ma ca, even before 1989 and regardless of pronunciation, then we should put it first. But for people (like me) who have never been to Burma and don't know all the nuances of language use, but can nevertheless read the script a little, it's confusing to say that the spelling mranma ca can be pronounced [bəmàsà]. Which is the more common spelling in informal writing? For example, say a Burmese immigrant to America was writing a letter home to his mother and wanted to say "I'm using so much English nowadays, I hope I don't forget how to write Burmese." Would he be more likely to write mranma ca or ba.ma ca? User:Angr 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in an informal letter, one would write mranma ca rather than ba.ma ca. But, I ba.ma ca is phonetically correct, although that is non-standard usage. It's sort of like hkang bya: (you in formal Burmese), which is never pronounced [kʰìNbjà], but as [kʰìNmjá]. And, which should be usen to refer to tbe Burmese language? mranma ca refers to the written language, while mranma caka: (မ္ရန္‌မာစကား) refers to the spoken language. Hintha 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would write mranma ca even in an informal context, then I guess we should only use that spelling on the page. And we should mention both mranma ca for written Burmese and mranma caka: for spoken Burmese. User:Angr 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay

I had a look, indeed, not nice again. I was going to have a loo at it after I would be back, but I agree with you that it should be deleted. It can be expected that it gets recreated at a different name again as he has dopne before..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ß

I see you've taken a look at some of User:Adam Carr's recent edits, in which he has replaced the ß in many German articles, principally street names, to render them "simple" (see my talk page), thus producing the likes of Voss-strasse and Rosa-Luxemburg-Strasse. Note that the former article begins "Voss-strasse (sometimes Voss-strasse) or Voßsstraße," which is both ghastly and wrong. I'd like to think he can be persuaded to see reason (I too dislike the ß, and wish it had been abolished, but I do not impose this on articles), but so far it's revert, revert, revert. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's just a condescending, xenophobic troll and I've given up fighting with him about it. I just have to keep telling myself "It's only Wikipedia, no one expects it to be accurate anyway" and then take his playground pages off my watchlist. User:Angr 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed "Voss-strasse (sometimes Voss-strasse) or Voßsstraße", that's hysterical! User:Angr 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody edited my User page!

Hi, Angr!

Somebody has put an irrelevant picture in place of the actual picture of me on my user page. I am a little annoyed about this, and consider it to be vandalism, as it is exactly the same as editing a wikipedia article by deliberately putting false information on it.

Is there anyway I can find out who did this, and therefore lodge a formal complaint against this person?

I will leave the picture there until you can reply to me, so maybe you can find out who did it (and then tell me how you found out).

Cheers, Angr,

Givnan. CCLemon 12:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the way to check who has made an edit is to check the History of the page. This is true for user pages as well as for articles. Checking your user page history, I saw that no one edited your user page. Then I went to the image description page of your picture and found the problem: someone uploaded a different image under the same name as yours. It was probably an honest mistake, not vandalism, but I left them a message on their talk page asking them to be more careful in the future. I also reverted to your image by clicking on (rev) in the "File history" section. User:Angr 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Angr! Helpful as ever! Thanks a lot. Maybe it was partly my fault, too, then for not personalizing the filename enough. I'll remember it in future! CCLemon 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Berlin reloaded

What do you think about this? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"articles that are not part of the AfD process"

Maybe I don't understand the process. The phrase "this article's entry" was redlinked, so I assumed that there was no entry on the AfD page and thus the process was incomplete.--Curtis Clark 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're fast!

You deleted this cat within a minute of my deleting the last image in it. You stole my glory in having cleared the cat :(. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha! Actually, I don't know how many times I've had categories like that deleted out from under me when I was in the process of emptying them, so it was nice to turn the tables for a change! User:Angr 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes it always seems to happen to me for some reason. I considered restoring it and deleting it again just so I could gloat in my summary, but decided that would be rather counterproductive =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done about such abuse?

Hi Angr,

I don't know if you were aware that a deletion campaign had been recently launched against Names of European cities in different languages and two successor pages. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages. The deletionists clearly lost by a wide margin (more than two to one), yet User:Mackensen has gone ahead and deleted the three articles anyway, essentially because he did not believe the users who voted to Keep knew what they were doing. I wish to protest such abuse in the strongest possible terms. I demand (1) a review and a reversal of these three deletions; (2) a censure of User:Mackensen's conduct and an appropriate punishment. I strongly believe he should be barred from the Wikipedia for such glaringly undemocratic, dictatorial, not to mention ignorant, abuse of the Wikipedia! Please let me know how to proceed. Pasquale 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things Wikipedia is not is a democracy. AFD discussions are not always carried by whichever side has the most supporters, but rather by the relevance of the arguments. If you think the discussions were closed improperly, the place to turn is deletion review. User:Angr 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr, for enlightening me. In this particular case, not only did the minority view apparently win out over the overwhelming majority consensus, but, interestingly, the minority view was predominantly held by an assortment of non-specialists in the relevant fields, while the majority view was predominantly held by the specialists (linguists, toponymists, geographers, etc.). Perhaps you will now tell me that the Wikipedia is not a place where a specialist's opinion counts at all, but, on the contrary, it's the minority non-specialists that carry the day. Now, how do you like that? If this is not abuse, I don't know what is. Pasquale 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flapping

The term flapping most commonly refers to what a bird does and so should not redirect to where you're pointing it to. Most people searching for "flapping" will want information on that as that's the most common meaning. We have an article gliding which is clearly about the most common meaning, not the linguistics process of gliding, the flapping article similarly should point to the most common meaning, not the linguistics process. Grook 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no linguistic process called "gliding", so the comparison is invalid. Look at What links to "Flapping": all links to that word are referring to the phonoogical process. The hatnote at the top of Phonological history of English t points people to other instance of the term. That's what hatnotes are there for. User:Angr 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that there are so many links to flapping as a linguistics process is because that's what the article was originally about. It's not about that now, and there will be even fewer "flapping" links about the linguistics process in the future. Grook 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly, there is such thing as "gliding" in linguistics if you check Google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gliding%22+%22linguistics%22&btnG=Search However, that's not the main topic at the "gliding" article, nor does the redirect point to an article that talks about that. The "gliding" article sensibly refers to the most common meaning in the main article. Personally, I agree with Grook that it should redirect to flap, but I'm not going to change it. Voortle 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]