User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mahagaja. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

RfA thanks

Hi Angr, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Indo-European studies

Hi Angr! Would you care to take a look at my suggestion at Template talk:Indo-European studies? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold revert cycle

Hi Angr, on the TEB728 talk page where you refered me to WP:BOLD, discuss, revert cycle. The revision as protected by TEB728 is non standard. TEB728 wishes not to discuss appropriately. If anyone knows standard knowledge of the English language you, yourself would claim to be such a one. You express no views. That is your perogative. Silly if you ask me. Cya ~ R.T.G 18:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "non standard", and what makes you think TEB728 "wishes not to discuss appropriately"? As I said, he hasn't even been on Wikipedia since his revert. Just because someone has a life in the real world outside Wikipedia, that doesn't mean they're ignoring you. —An gr 19:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a longer story than that. I made a smaller edit a few days ago which he reverted so I began discussion with him and in his reply I found something (about Anglo-Saxons) which was obviously missing entirely along with any other relevant details. (check and find that very few of the stuff I entered is on the page at all) He went on to say that it was important to keep all that stuff on History of the English Language so I pointed out these to things saying it looks a bit biased towards your history ideas. Well he deleted it from his talk page so, I reverted his talk adding that I thought he had skipped some of the discussion and confused me as though I offended him. Well he doctored it and said stuff like West-Germainic should not be obscured by any other information on the article and something about 3rd level style (to that effect) and not mentioning any background details on the article. Well at that stage I suggested he should reference those ideas as it would be very interesting to me. Well he deleted it from his page again! Well having learned about the language in a british school, the version presented appears as a sliver of information chosen as preference (why does it not say Indo-European or Anglo-Saxon as is most common and relevant?), so I did a few hours revision and, by and large, it was non-standard, as I suspected and could be accused of misleading slightly (if in fact it were not devoid of content). I constructed a proper, albeit very short, lead to the article citing references, some perfect, some not bad, from the revision I did and this guy who doesnt want to discuss removed it all again. Assuming good faith and looking at TEB728s user page he seems to be well clued in to the subject but is operating an agenda beyond reproach with an effect akin to blanking pages. Sorry for flooding your page. It's all very mucky to me and on my part a very small edit but on TEB728 part a key change. ~ R.T.G 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Hungarian

Forgive me for asking you, but could you help out by keeping an eye on two editors (unless one is a sockpuppet) trying to change English-language terminology for this script? They're doing it on the hu.wikipedia.org as well. The roots of this are in a dispute as to what the name should be in the UCS. See the history as well. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester

Hello. Wandering the wiki I came across a comment on the Manchester talk page mentioning that the IPA was wrong, reflecting a West Country accent which seemed slightly bizarre. The article being protected, but this not seeming to have been part of any disputes I could see, and nobody having replied to this person, I logged in for the first time in ages, and probably the last time in a while too :) to sort it out, since it did seem rather strange. Having done that, I finally managed to find the edit where it was changed and saw it was you. And your edit summary, and knowing you, made me think you probably had a very good reason. So now I'm worried I broke some subtle thing you did, although making it rhotic seemed strange.

So yeah, just a heads-up that I changed it and an apology if I've screwed something up. :-/ Skittle (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving Oedipus Rex (film)

Hey. There are lots of films called Oedipus Rex listed on the imdb. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then move it back to Oedipus Rex (1967 film) and make Oedipus Rex (film) a disambiguation page for all the films by that name. But up till I moved it, Oedipus Rex (film) was just a redirect to Oedipus Rex (1967 film). —An gr 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Language and linguistics

Hi, I believe that a conversation conducted via edit summaries is not very fruitful. The Request for Comment touches on two areas: (1) Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) because Bernard Lewis is alive; and (2) Language and linguistics because this particular dispute concerns the translation of a particular use of the French word "condamn´e" into English. I would have thought that my explanation that translation is applied linguistics is fairly uncontroversial, but if you disagree then please let me know here or on my Talk page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people add RFC-lang tags when the dispute is about things like translation or the meaning of a word, but that's not what it's for. The RFC-lang tags are for when the dispute is in an article whose topic is language or linguistics. If there was a dispute in the article Armenian language, the RFC-lang tag would be correct, but the topic of Denial of the Armenian Genocide is not language or linguistics. —An gr 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did get your point the first time. What I was asking for was a reference to back it up. No matter, I searched the RfC instructions and found this: "Select the appropriate template from the table to the right - if requesting comments on an article, template, category, etc. about Politics, use {{RFCpol}}, Biographies use {{RFCbio}}, etc". So this would support your contention. I disagree with these instructions. The result is that my RfC, which is about translation (i.e., applied linguistics) as much as about a BLP issue, can be removed from RfCLang for not meeting the instructions. But there is no other place to go if I want to ask for editors prepared to give input regarding a translation issue -- and they are the ones I want, regardless of "what the article is about", which is entirely secondary.

However, my hands are tied at this point. If you wish to remove the template a third time, I cannot argue. Thank you for your time.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for tacitly allowing the RfC to run its course. This made it possible for user:Blue-Haired Lawyer, who found his/her way to Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Issues regarding deniers via the Lang RfC, to weigh in. I believe that BHL's input made the difference to enable the issue to be settled by consensus. In the meantime, though, I looked over the RfC instructions again and found this also:

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire at the help desk.

I read this as a go-ahead to place a question about a topic area into the page relevant to that topic area, regardless of what the article is about. So there appears to be a degree of ambiguity in the RfC instructions. What say if we rewrite the sentence that I quoted in my previous post, above, to invite editors to do just that?

Separate question: Would you support a proposal for creating a Translation Issues Noticeboard?

And finally: I've noticed the good work you do at the Language Reference Desk. Congratulations on your helpful answers there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yoo hoo

Anybody home?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Angr. I'm not home right now, but if you leave your name and number after the beep, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. *BEEP*. —An gr 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Anti-semitic people

Hi, Angr. This is a friendly notice to inform you that a category on which you commented Category:Anti-semitic people has been nominated for deletion. The conversation is located here. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I that obvious...?!

...or are you just especially attentive and nice? -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about obvious, but after a while one notices when a pattern emerges. —An gr 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Per your previous question, I asked a priest at our church who is also a university professor, he said it is at the pastor's discretion whether or not to offer the Eucharist under "both species". NancyHeise ^talk 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess it could still be said that one difference between the Old Catholic and the Roman Catholic churches is that in the OC churches communion is offered under both species as a matter of course, while in the RC churches it's at the pastor's discretion, and in practice it's comparatively rare, but I don't think it's really such an important difference that's it's worth hunting down sources for. At least not to me. —An gr 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. NancyHeise ^talk 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

The only reason that Tenmei (talk · contribs) put the three templates to the article and "redirect" page is the hospital's name related to Yonsei, not the content of the article itself. So RFC for language is I think a fit one.--Caspian blue 16:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing any connection. RFClang is for articles about topics related to languages and linguistics, not for terminology-related disputes in articles on any topic at all. —An gr 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I believed that RFC system is about disputed specific contents not overall topic of articles.--Caspian blue 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

HIJACKED RfC

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V, is twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
- EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. --Tenmei (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hello. I'm not sure what content was under Chondalwood, Lapaliiya, Pirate Isles, Ruathym, and Tortured Land when you deleted them; since then a redirect has been placed on each. If it was not copyvio, could you please restore the edit history for these? Thanks!

Also, would you be able to restore the edit history of Storm Silverhand in a similar manner? If you like, you can redirect that one to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They didn't have anything but section headings and external links. Do you really need those in the edit history of these redirects? —An gr 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they probably couldn't hurt, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Up to you, I guess. :) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless you really need them for something, I'd rather not. —An gr 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Cheng Six Steps Photo

I'm pretty annoyed by your closing of this image discussion. You obviously didn't read the rationale even though I asked you to - that image met the NFCC; I even fixed the rationale to make it do that better. Why can't you be more co-operative in sorting out images? Images of author's titles are used elsewhere on Wikipedia - what's wrong with this one? Why do you always side with a disruptive user like Damiens.rf and never bother to even talk to people about co-operatively sorting out images? It's just uncooperative behaviour all round and it's not right. It's no wonder I don't want to edit here any more. Reply here. INTGAFW (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The image did not meet NFCC and nothing in the rationale made it do so. If there are other articles about authors that use the images of the authors' books but have no critical commentary about the book or the book cover, they should be deleted too. —An gr 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But it did meet NFCC - I don't think you read the image rationale. An illustration of the cover of ONE of an author's works is helpful in discussing an author and significantly aids understanding of that author- because it illustrates the sort of thing they are writing about. The book was discussed in the article. Why are you so biased against me? Your answer is so abrupt and you seem very unwilling to be cooperative when it comes to images. INTGAFW (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rh

Hello, Angr. I just found a problem with interwiki links in the protected template {{Rh}}. Could you repair it, please, because you are an sysop? Thanks and greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? (BTW, the usual thing to do is use the {{editprotected}} tag on the talk page.) —An gr 13:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some interwiki links are in the template, but partially in the page for categories and interwiki links too: {{Rh/doc}}. That's why some are doubled in the left list. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)