User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 29

FYI, Lucas Samaras

The poster of the image gallery you removed has been anonymously edit warring with its removal. I just tagged all three images with {{dfu}}, so I'm going to try and deal with it that way; if they continue to revert without justification I'm just going to block and delete them all and let God sort it out. Cheers, Postdlf 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More Irish pronunciation stuff

Hi Angr. Sorry to bother you with more of this stuff, but there's another article with nonstandard pronunciation guides for Irish: Carty (name). I was trying to fix it myself, but I just don't know enough to. Take care --Miskwito 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Accent (linguistics)

Hey man, I see you archived the talk page, do you have any thoughts on the current content or how it should be re-organised ? Would appreciate some input from real linguists :) - Francis Tyers · 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:CDDAlogo.svg

Next time please have the courtesy to read more carefully before swinging your axe. The source of the image and license (logo) were both clearly stated:

...from a Philips graphic file for identification purposes...

Please restore the image. Thank you. --John Navas 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Source information has to include the copyright holder of the image. That description doesn't seem to. —Angr 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does, if you take the time to read more carefully: Philips

--John Navas 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, but please make the source info more explicit. At least two different editors have interpreted the image as not having sufficient source information, so the source info probably needs to be harder to overlook. —Angr 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. "(copyright holder)" has been added to the text. Good enough? --John Navas 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Canadian gaeltacht" redirect

On August 8th this page was deleted following a deletion review of "Permanent North American Gaeltacht". This page has now been re-established and approved. I request that you reinstate this redirect page, as It is what many people will likely type in to search and the system will not allow me to recreate it myself. Thanks! Danjdoyle 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it need to be undeleted? Can't you just make a new redirect? —Angr 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I tried twice to no avail, then once more after you said so an it worked fine...must just be my terrible lan line! Thanks anyway and sorry to trouble you. Danjdoyle 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

French dictionary

Hey Angr, a few months ago you suggested a French etymological dictionary by Dauzat et al., which I ended up buying last week, when I discovered a French bookstore here. I was looking at Le Petit Robert too, which also has etymologies, but of course it's about 5 times more expensive! Thanks for your help! Adam Bishop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bishop (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad I could be of help. —Angr 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadassa Ben-Itto

The author's portrait image has been deleted.

There is fair-use rational for this difficult to reach celebrity & public figure.

Can you help me restore it?

Thanks.

--Ludvikus 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I just noticed your "stocker": User:Angr/User no fair use

I don't know what that means, or the rationale behind it.

Can you help me understand?

Thanks again.

--Ludvikus 12:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To your first question, no; she is still alive and therefore using a nonfree image of her violates Wikipedia policy. To your second question, it means that because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, I don't think nonfree image should be used here. —Angr 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not using a picture of HER! I'm using an image of her Book cover.

Please explain yourself before you revert.

--Ludvikus 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see; I was confused because you said "portrait image". In general, book covers are used to illustrate articles about books, not about their authors. However, the article Hadassa Ben-Itto does seem to be more about the book than about its author, so you might consider moving the article name to The Lie That Wouldn't Die and focusing on the book. At any rate, you need to write a fair-use rationale for the image. —Angr 05:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Adminship anniversary

Wishing Mahagaja/Archive 29 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~~~~

Pat^{Politics rule!} 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Irish phonology#Strange things

Did you see this new section? If so, then I'm sorry to have bothered you. Stefán 17:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Somehow Irish phonology accidentally slipped off my watchlist. —Angr 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

I believe that you have locked in the reverter's text, User talk:DominvsVobiscvm#Three-revert rule, whom you rebuked for repeatedly violating the three revert rule. He will have no problem with that! Ironically, this is what happened on the Archdiocese of Miami, too. So the reverter wins in both cases! About a total of six editors have been trying to combat him since early July with no help at all from Wikipedia. If someone could ever lock out his changes you might get a discussion going. But here, he just goes home happy. No reason to even edit again or get on Wikipedia again. His hate group wins! A mediator has "been referring" us to arbitration since mid-August or earlier. The mediator is also in school so it's not exactly a top priority with him. Student7 23:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The page Roman Catholic Sex abuse cases and Archdiocese of Miami have been locked down in their most offensive form with exactly the same informatin submitted by the only editor out of many who wants this information on the page, DominvsVobiscm. Many statements locked in here not only do not have reliable references, they have no reference. I suggest in the interest of avoiding lawsuits or negative publicity for Wikipedia (that is not a threat) that the page be locked down under a more unbiased version until administrators make their decisions. Please see the editprotected tag and reasons for request for edit on the Archdiocese of Miami discussion page submitted by stacyyw. NancyHeise 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my message on the talk page, it is not an endorsement of the current version. In fact, it's usually the wrong version that gets saved when a page is locked. I have the page on my watchlist and will be following the talk page discussion. —Angr 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The talk page containing most of the discussion for this material is on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/John_Favalora There are two pages of discussion on this site and more on the discussion page of Archdiocese of Miami. It has been discussed over and over for at least two months with many editors who all reject the material except DominvsVobiscm. There is nothing more anyone can say on any more Wikipedia sites. The editor DominvsVobiscm who submitted the offending material has placed it on the Wiki pages for John Favalora, Archdiocese of Miami and Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. Right now, it is saved in his version on two of these pages. It was not locked on John Favalora (Archbishop of Miami Archdiocese) for possible violation of Wikipolicy regarding living persons. Someone in Admin needs to make a decision about this material by looking at the discussions on the pages of these three sites 1)John Favalora Requests for Mediation 2)Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and 3) Roman Catholic Sex Abuse CasesNancyHeise 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You put the "no source" tab on Image:PILAR-SVJ-RAT.jpg. It's the cover of a book published in 1917, by an author who died in 1933. So what are you doing? --Zmaj 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for some sort of information on the book that allows readers to verify that information. Even public domain images need source information. —Angr 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tell us where you got it and put that information on the image description page. "Scanned by User:Zmaj" would be an example of good source information. Haukur 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Argentine film

Are you having a laugh!!! You've just added about 50kb of tags to my user page ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not laughing at the large number of images you uploaded that don't comply with Wikipedia policy, no. —Angr 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

I just thought you might like to put this template on your user/talk page.

<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:120px; width:120px;"><div style="position: relative; width: 120px; height:120px; overflow: hidden"> <div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3"></div> <div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">[[Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg|120px]]</div> </div> </div>

Re: Image:RuthGordon.jpg

I grabbed this image off of the net somewhere, probably from imdb. It is clearly a publicity photo, released by the actress or her agent with the expectation that it be widely used. Wikipedia has (or, once upon a time, had) an explicit exception allowing the use of such images. (In fact, that's the license template I used when I originally uploaded the image.)

Ruth Gordon is dead. No one will possibly ever be able to go and make a new, wholly-free-use picture of her.

If your crusade against fair-use images is such that you believe this article would be better without an image (forever) than with the image it has now, go ahead and delete it. I disagree rather strongly, but I have zero time or stamina to argue with you about it. --Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want it to comply with policy, which requires better source information than "I grabbed this image off of the net somewhere, probably from imdb." —Angr 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Dear Angr, Please come see that DominvsVobiscm is continuing an edit war on the page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases in the Archdiocese of Miami section. We have all discussed this and come to the conclusion that his edits do not belong on this page. They are not sex abuse cases. He just adds the material and there is no discussion input from him. Help!NancyHeise 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know! I'm keeping an eye on it. You might start gathering evidence for a Request for Comment about him. Be sure to avoid the word "vandalism", though, in describing his behavior, because however annoying it has been, it really doesn't qualify as vandalism in the strict sense. (I don't know if you might have described it that way anyway, but I see from his talk page that other people have, and it doesn't help one's case.) —Angr 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My fault. I've been cautioned since, and have stopped using those words. Sorry. Student7 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed my offensive comments from User talk:DominvsVobiscvm's user discussion page, apologized there and sent him an unqualified email apology as well. I hope that helps.Student7 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Parable

Hi, I noticed your user page the other day and I felt the logic behind it was irrefutable. Do you mind if I translate it and post it on the Korean Wikipedia? Thank you. --Kjoonlee 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The text of the parable is also free, of course! But since it's licensed under the GFDL, you do still have to acknowledge the author of the original. —Angr 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding German

Hey Angr, sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could answer a few of my questions. I'm at College now (KSU) and am studying German. I'm naturally just parroting her accent, which is non-rhotic, but here are the questions:

1. Does German use intervocalic r's? /fɔɪə ɾʊnt vasɐ/ for "Feuer und Wasser"?
2. Are final obstruents allowed to be voiced across word boundaries? /ʊnd iːnən/ "Und Ihnen"?

Thanks again for your time.Cameron Nedland 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not usually, no. Strictly speaking, German has no vowel-initial words, as words that are spelled with initial vowels are pronounced with an initial glottal stop. Thus /fɔɪɐ ʔʊnt vasɐ/ and /ʔʊnt ʔiːnən/. In rapid speech the glottal stops might disappear, but there's still no linking r and usually no voicing. The only exception would be when two function words are run together into practically one phonological word, such as "hab' ich", which comes out /habɪç/. —Angr 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Danke schön.Cameron Nedland 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sex Abuse Cases

Dear Angr, I have just undone an edit on the page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases placed there by User talk:DominvsVobiscvm after he was blocked yesterday. Can something be done to stop this person from repeatedly placing this material on this page? NancyHeise 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to block him again so soon, but it may yet come to that. I've started a discussion about his behavior at WP:AN/I#What to do about DominvsVobiscvm?; you may want to comment there. And I have a request: when you add a new comment at a talk page (whether a user talk page or an article talk page), please initiate it by clicking the + button at the top of the page, and put the heading in the edit summary line. Either that, or remember to use two equals signs on each side of a header. You usually use just one equals sign on each side of a header, which screws up the formatting of the talk page. —Angr 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to stop by and thank you for helping out with the DominvsVobiscvm situation.StacyyW 13:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued edits by DominvsVobiscvm

Dear Angr, please see that even after more discussion and additional showing of consensus by editors, DominvsVobiscvm has reverted the article Roman Catholic sex abuse cases twice today already. What can be done to stop this and remove the material from the locked Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami page. I would like to add material to both of these pages but no one can do anything until DominvsVobiscvm situation is addressed.NancyHeise 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I think that was a bad idea. I'm not going to revert you, but I would appreciate if you would revert yourself. Unprotecting the article is just going to open it up to more revert warring -- the dispute needs to go through Arbitration, and the committee and I have to prepare for that. I've been busy in real life lately, but this issue will be taken care of soon. Andre (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not assume there is only one user editing unproductively in this dispute. It is a nuanced issue, but I see above you have chosen to take sides. Andre (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is probably different at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami than it is at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. At the latter, it really is only one user editing unproductively, because the material he's adding isn't even relevant to the topic. At the archdiocese article, the material may well be relevant, which makes the issue less clear-cut. At any rate, I'll keep the Archdiocese article on my watchlist for a while and see how things progress. If there's unproductive editing on both sides again, then I'll re-protect. —Angr 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Haigh, a Angr

Cad faoi? Just thought I'd mention that the Irish language wiktionary is back up and running after a very long hiatus. It's a hive of activity right now. Care to pop over and join us? - Alison ^❤ 08:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (a go on! You know you want to!)

Bellingham Bulls logo

Although I am not the uploader, if you undelete Image:Bellingham bulls.JPG, I will add FU Rationale. DMighton 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically it was deleted for not having source information, but it would need a rationale too. Do you have the source? —Angr 07:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all WHA logos are available under officialwha.com which is both the team's owning company and the team's league... DMighton 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's restored. —Angr 13:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Satir images

Hi, I see you uploaded Image:VirginiaSatir.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir1.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir2.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir3.jpg, and Image:VirginiaSatir4.jpg as {{PD-self}}, which means you are the creator (i.e. photographer) of all these images and release all rights to them. Is this the case? Since other languages' Wikipedias have articles on Virginia Satir, I'd like to move the images to Commons, but to do so I need to be sure that you actually have the authority to release these images into the public domain. Thanks! —Angr 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am the photographer for these images. Please feel free to move the images to Commons. William Meyer 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Message on hsbwp

Dear Angr, you have a little message on hsbwp. I would be glad, if you could produce a little nice image for the upper sorbian wikipedia, because we at the moment can use the german version only. Greetings --Tlustulimu 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Splice.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Splice.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg

I have provided further rationale to the image description page. Please, leave a note to my talk page before you tag it to let me know what you think of it. Dispute tags and policy pages don't detail specific concerns about specific use. Besides, {{db-author}} still remains the fastest speedy deletion tag. Allow me to be gallant and request a deletion myself, if I fail to provide a satisfactory rationale that would hold in a court. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the problem seems to lie in the statement - although I doubt it. That perfectly clarifies the statement - just because you write... doesn't make it so. The other explanation could be the need for a coherent rationale. IMHO the rationale provided is coherent enough, and Haemo did find it to be so (along with the argument presented on the image talk page).

I can understand the amount of irritation I am causing by delaying the deletion of a non-free image. WP admins busy removing such images must have all the reason to be get rid of them fast. Now, if possible, would you let me know on my talk what may be considered a coherent rationale? I thought, The rationale is already talking about this image explicitly. Well I'm making another attempt at clarification anyways. And, oh, the bit you don't believe in is featured on the Playboy FAQ page. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lena Sjobloom

That was about the phenomenon, as exemplified by Leena the photograph. A phenomenon is not a one shot thing. Right? I have undone that edit and fixed the copy to accommodate the particular happening. I hope you don't mind giving editors a chance to improve upon things instead of deleting good faith attempts right away. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was about the phenomenon of the Lenna image only; it has no bearing on the Jayne Marie Mansfield case. —Angr 15:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)