User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 32

Berlin semi protection

Can you please consider to install the discreet version "sprotect2" ? Thanks in advance. Lear 21 10:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but since it's only semiprotected due to vandalism, not fully protected due to edit-warring, you could have done that yourself. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn´t knew that. Lear 21 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP- editors keep abusing the articles´ content. I suggest to consider a permanent semi protection with a discrete tag (pp-semi-protected|small=yes) for more stabilization. Lear 21 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mödlareuth

What category could it be in? It can't be in either Town category as it is not a town. Agathoclea 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a town? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a village, which is not even one village as such but two parts. One is part of the town of Gefell the other is part of the municipality of Töpen. Agathoclea 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems like hair-splitting to me (I'd say villages are towns too, just like ponies are horses), but if you insist, how about Category:Municipalities in Bavaria and Category:Geography of Thuringia? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography of is the one I was looking for - and then we can sort them from there once we get better categories. Thanks Agathoclea 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Classical Newari

Hi Angr

I saw in the history of Classical Newari that you were the one who redirected this article to Nepal Bhasa. I've deleted the redirection and re-created the independent article as a stub, on the basis that the two languages have different ISO 639-2 codes. Hope you don't mind, maybe you've long ago forgotten about it anyway (was two years ago ...). universimmedia (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You're right, I'd long ago forgotten about it anyway! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foetus_Sink.jpg

You tagged this picture as copyright disputed because of "No indication of copyright holder, as required by WP:NFCC#10," but the Non-free album cover template already on the page states, "[T]he copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question." Isn't that an indication of the copyright holder? -- rynne (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we need to know who specifically. Is it the publisher of the recording? If so, who is the publisher of the recording? Is it the artist who made the cover artwork? If so, who is that artist? A general statement saying "it's probably the publisher or artist" isn't sufficient. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If that information is not available on the album itself, can the artwork never be shown on Wikipedia? The artwork itself is undoubtably the creation of the musician who recorded the album, J. G. Thirlwell, but the linear notes contain no credits regarding the images at all, just informtion on the musical credits. I'll try to get in touch with the man himself to query about the credit. -- rynne (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't cover art usually copyrighted by the record company in their function as publisher? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Beats me; all I know about copyright is what I believed to be sufficient to fill in templates. Without being able to find a verfiable reference, anything I put up will just be speculation, no different than saying the owner is "probably" the publisher or the artist, right? And that doesn't fly on Wikipedia, if I'm understanding your concerns. -- rynne (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there really nothing anywhere on the CD saying "© So-and-so" or "Cover art by So-and-so"? Anyway, if you don't get an answer in a week, just put down the name of the production company as being better than nothing to keep it from being deleted. Or, to be on the really super-safe side, let it get deleted if necessary, and then once you have the info, let me know and I'll undelete it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with tradition

In continuing with WP:AN/I's tradition of complaining about users without ever mentioning it to their faces (or at least talk pages), you may wish to be made aware of this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Image_deletion_spree_by__Angr, which I have already responded to but which it would seem only logical to inform you about. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, as Oscar Wilde said, there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note

Following your post at the arbcom pages, I clicked on your sig to see what a link labelled "if you've written a quality article" might lead to. Since I have, I was curious. I found the page, read it, visited the MFD link, commented. The comment is completely separate from anything else (of course).

Just thought you'd want to know how that came about!

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Rhinox-botcon.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhinox-botcon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Power of Christian prayer

Hi, By the time you typed your message, I had revetrted changes and clearly explained the reason, namely that it needs to be teh easiest to find. I think that is the best way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Neither name is "easier to find" than the other, because the redirect automatically takes the user to the current name of the article. If you want to change the article's name, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the "move button". History2007 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrible suspicions

User:1337m4n has uploaded a whole lot of thong pictures that look suspiciously like pictures copied from online retail catalogs. I have posted a message to that end to User talk:1337m4n, and have tagged them as "no-source". But, I guess, someone needs to take a look at them serieously. Since, I don't know the process, would you care to take a look?

• Image:Vstring.jpg
• Image:Pantty3.jpg
• Image:Fullthong.jpg
• Image:5519593.jpg
• Image:Bikini4107.jpg
• Image:Vstringbikini.JPG
• Image:F0ac 1.JPG

Alas! Those pictures are not even "sexy"! :P Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging them as "no source" was the right thing to do. I've put them on my watchlist to make sure the tags don't get removed improperly, so unless the uploader comes back and provides proper source info that confirms the licenses he gave them, all we do now is sit back and wait a week for them to be deleted. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For Making some Useful recent Changes Newlinecinema (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with IPA, act 2, scene umpteen

I feel really guilty, but here I am again after your help with Gaelic IPA for one of my ghastly articles. It's Constantine II of Scotland, or as it says in the article, Constantín. I think mac Áeda is [mak ˈaiða], but I haven't the faintest idea for Constantín. If Old English efforts are writing it down are any guide, I'd guess [kəsant'in] or something like that, but that's a woefully ill-informed and unwise guess! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not a native Gaelic word, I don't really know either. My best guess is [ˈkɔnstantʲiːn], but I don't really know how 10th-century Gaels would have pronounced a Latin name. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your best guess is more than good enough! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Man

Can you point me towards a consensus? All I saw on the talk page was unresolved arguments about what picture to use. Cleverly calling it censorship doesn't get around the obvious issue of having a naked guy on the top of the page. It could just as well be at the bottom of the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead images of articles go at the top, not the bottom. The discussion on the talk page was resolved by allowing both the van Gloeden and Michelangelo's David, a situation which has obtained for many months now. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast

I knew It was a sin when I did it, but I felt I had to try. I had no idea he was even up for it until this morning. -- SECisek (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

dunno if you're interested..

..in the thread about where the Veropedia money goes.. starting here. Please excuse if you aren't interested. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your parable

I very much like this story. I do not completely agree with it, but it is very clever and seems like something I would think of. Although no fair use would make things a lot easier... Also, you seem very concerned about keeping all content on Wikipedia "free". The intent of this freedom is for easy distribution, yet you are pissed at another website copying Wikipedia (and profiting from it, as many other websites do). What's the deal? --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the fact that another website copies Wikipedia content that bothers me. Answers.com copies Wikipedia content and runs ads next to it too; that's no problem. The problem is that Answers.com just passively mirrors what Wikipedia already has, but Veropedia has its own editors, who are also Wikipedia editors, and who modify content here on Wikipedia for the purpose of making it acceptable for use on Veropedia. (In the case shown by that diff, he was removing nonfree content, which of course I'm in favor of, but you see the principle.) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Featured articles" on Wikipedia are the only ones comparible to those found in real encyclopedias if you ask me. So if I were to mirror Wikipedia in anyway, it would be the Featured articles. I am guessing Veropedia has a style guide, just like Wikipedia has a style guide. Theirs is different, so they must accommodate. The edit summary was this: "rmv fair use for the Veropedia parser, will self-revert ASAP. Thank you!" Here is a comparison of the edit before the user in question's first edit to that page, and the only difference is the new one has two less contractions but has three more citations. Also the note on your userpage concerning if a website has advertising it automatically cannot have a neutral point of view. I am not a fan of advertising, I find it tacky and I hope it never is seen on Wikipedia. I have not seen any ads on Veropedia, but you seem to have the idea that websites with advertising are the equivalent of network television. People with opinions do not choose what ads are shown (I am assuming Veropedia uses Pay per click ads), computers choose them based on keywords on the page the ad is to be shown on. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Still taking this in? --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Returnjedicast.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Returnjedicast.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. Rettetast (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Argentina

Familiarise youself with {{PD-AR-Photo}}. It would help if you could change the licensing on older Argentine photos which have a fair use rationale. I only recently found this but photos older than 20 years are public domain in Argentina, I've been trying to get Videmus Omnia to upload them freely to the commons

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this because cinenacional is the official film website and uses images of all the actors during their film career only -promotional photos released at the time. Our Argentine comedian retired from Argentine film in 1981. This particularly image would have been taken at the career peak of the actor -early to mid 1970s. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a request with Videmus to begin uploading the ones which currently are tagged as fair use to the commons. There are many to sort out but he'll do it in time hopefully. The filmography of the actor will have to be used as a guideline on what has expired. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

2 things:

1.I have read your if bit and it is appeasing to me and 2.thanks for awnsering my query on the Wikipedia talk page, it was a understandable(Wow that is a long word!)awnser.

Yours sincerly,

               --PwnersRule (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)PwnersRule

Ciarán

Would you mind taking a look at the pronunciation at Ciarán? I can't even tell if it's supposed to be Irish or English. Thanks. kwami (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! kwami (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Angr/If

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		"The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service." - Totally deserved for this essay. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

a barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Barnstars are nearly three years old, and I have never issued one before. You are the first. I give this to you in recognition of your articulate and well-thought out stances against Veropedia and against non-free content. Your parable was wonderful reading. Kingturtle (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Film screenshot used to identify a deceased actor

Hi Angr. Regarding [1], I disagree that {{Non-free film screenshot}} disallows the use of screenshots to identify a deceased actor. The template does not explicitly say that screenshots can only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents"; it says that "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement".[my italics] I think that the rationale I added [2] gave a good reason for fair use of the image in Jason Miller, and that use of the image meets the WP:NFCC, which allows a non-free image in deceased people's articles. Screenshots are most commonly used in film articles, but I have seen them used in other articles with seemingly no problems. Bláthnaid 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The way to illustrate an article of a deceased actor is with a publicity shot, not a screenshot. I'm not surprised you've seen screenshots used this way, but that doesn't mean they're in keeping with policy. The fact that something may be copyright infringement is a good enough reason not to do it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale gives the reasons why use of the image in Jason Miller complies with the non-free content criteria and is not a copyright violation. If a publicity image is uploaded and used in that article, then there is one extra copyrighted image in Wikipedia. Other image types are used in a similar way. For example Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG is tagged with {{Non-free magazine cover}} but is used in Demi Moore. This is given as a good example of when it is appropriate to use a magazine cover in a biographical article on the Non free content guideline page. Bláthnaid 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair cover is not a comparable case. That image is not being used to identify Demi Moore, it's being used in a discussion of that very cover itself. But this is a screenshot just being used to show what he looked like, not in conjunction with discussion of the film. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about the image being used as part of a discussion, and thinking about it more, perhaps a screenshot is not the most encyclopaedic non-free image that could be used, since the actor would probably not look like the film character in their real life. A screenshot is OK if there is discussion about the film role in the article, then?

Since you know a lot about images, can I ask you another question: if an uploader adds {{GFDL}} to an obviously copyrighted image (I saw the image on another website), is it OK to just change the copyright tag and add a fair use rationale, or would the image have to be deleted and reuploaded? Bláthnaid 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a screenshot should be okay in the context of discussion of the film, if the screenshot itself shows what's being discussed. To your second question, you can change the tag and add a rationale if you know who the copyright holder of the image is (as required by WP:NFCC#10). If you don't, it's probably best to take it to WP:PUI. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Nollaig Shona Duit. Bláthnaid 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Duitse freisin! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Day the Earth Stood Still 1951.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Day the Earth Stood Still 1951.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your parable, continued

I saw your good intervention at User talk:Jrossgb and followed the link to your user page. The parable is really, really good. Thank you for that, it's really nudged me (even) further towards free over fair use images. I say this as someone who uploaded a lot of fair use images early in my time here, and has had messages from Betacommandbot about them ever since, it sometimes seems. Food for thought; thank you for posting it. --John (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Angrites

You are one of the "evolved achondrites"?  ;-) (Fröhliche Weihnachten y'all) Shenme (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cites

This *is* a standard citation system, and you should not change citation systems without consensus. Gimmetrow 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please see WP:CITE#Inline citations. Physically typing in the numbers [1], [2] and then numbering the references at the bottom is not one of the options. Why would you want to do it that way anyway? If someone adds new sources higher up in the article, it will just throw the numbering off. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And in fact, I'm the *only* editor ever to add references to that article, and I am quite capable of keeping the article in order. I am using a common citation style which is a variation of Harvard refs, which is acceptable to WP:CITE. Why are you changing citation styles contrary to the style used by the main author?

And yes, I am well aware of WP:CITE and WP:FN; I'm quite active at those guidelines. This just happens to be a cite style I wish to use here. Gimmetrow 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Up until a few hours ago, the article looked like this, with one standard footnote-style cite and one embedded link, so it's not as if your version was long established there. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but if you look back, I added those refs to begin with. To make them consistent, I chose to use this style. At that point it was consistent with a clearly selected style, and you have no reason to change it. Gimmetrow 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to use a counterintuitive, confusing citation style that is not used anywhere else in Wikipedia and that no one but you will ever follow? You don't OWN that article even if you are the major contributor to it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an OWN situation, though it may possibly have some WP:POINT to it. This *is* a very common variation of Harvard refs. I have you saying I *cannot* use this, simply because (apparently) you think it's uncommon on Wikipedia. If you really believe that, please come over to WP:FN and argue with PBS a bit. Otherwise, kindly self-revert and let me work on the article. Gimmetrow 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's nothing at all like Harvard refs. (I should know, I wrote Irish phonology single-handedly, and that uses Harvard refs.) Harvard refs use author name and year of publication, either directly inline, or in a footnote section accessed by means of <ref> tags. Your version is extremely unhelpful because there is no way to click on the footnote to get to the corresponding citation. And frankly, if using proper inline footnotes was good enough for you here, why (other than WP:POINT) is suddenly not good enough for you anymore? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, there may be a bit of a POINT to this. But in general, I'm getting frustrated by the problems with ref-style footnotes. Harvard refs, however, interrupt flow. This is a variation of Harvard refs where the parenthetical part is really short, and it doesn't seem to interrupt flow as much. Links back and forth are not really necessary (many articles don't have them, and there are plenty of articles which use hard-coded ref-marks^[1]), but down the road I could make a template (ref-alt) which would work with the note templates. Gimmetrow 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, what are you going to do here? User:Vary has decided to inflame the situation further, and revert to a version with footnotes, again removing perfectly valid parenthetic citations. Gimmetrow 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page, it's time for you to accept that consensus is against you. Four different editors have all tried to convert to the standard footnote notation. You are the one who is edit warring, you are the one with WP:OWNership issues, and you are the one who has admitted above that you're doing this to prove a WP:POINT. Your point has been made; now let the wiki philosophy of collaborative editing do its work. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

From my perspecitve, I see a posse of 4 accounts who dropped by the article, imposing things not required by any guideline, and disrupting the content editors while showing zero interest in improving the article. This is absolutely not an issue of WP:OWN, and you need to apologize for that accusation. I find, for this article, that parenthetic citations are best. You have shown no interest in the article. Quite the contrary: recall that this all started with an abusive single-purpose account which you supported. Therefore, you actions are disruptive, and are driving away a content editor. Is that really what you want? Gimmetrow 08:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think calling User:Above all else "an abusive single-purpose account" is pure newbie-biting. It's true he hasn't edited any other article, but requesting references be supplied for an unsourced article, and then converting those references to the one that the entire Wikipedia community except you prefers, is not being abusive. When you make a distinction between "content editors" and other editors, and when you say "As an active content editor here, I do not want this text littered with citation templates, and I do not want this text using footnotes", you are attempting to own the article. When you revert even the little edits other people make, of course no one is going to attempt to make more contentful edits, because they already know any other improvements they make will be reverted too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that user is not a newbie. And again, this is not ownership. Please do something useful with the text, by all means, rather than create shrubberies. Do you recognize that your edits interfere with working on the wikitext? You said you would support parenthetical citations, so why won't you do that? Gimmetrow 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because frankly, I have no reason to believe you wouldn't instantly revert me if I did. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Way to AGF, and way to research the article. Why don't you bloody look at the version immediately before Vary's last edit. Gimmetrow 10:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical citations aren't nearly as convenient for the reader who has to scroll down to find the source. I admit that inline citations create something of an eyesore that something needs to be done about (special Wiki-editing software, akin to an HTML editor would be my suggestion) but I still think ease of reading and verification should take presidency. ----Seans Potato Business 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A Romanian reader

I have no idea if this would be of any help, in conjunction with the Handbook of Romanian and a bilingual dictionary, but I came across it while browsing. [3] See the last item. Oh, and I wish you much joy in the treasure hunt of learning a small language! SaundersW (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 06:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Peter Jennings-Kayce Freed marriage mention

Angr, I have read a few of your dispute navigations and have come to see you as fair-minded. Would you take a look at a single sentence over which there is general agreement and minor disagreement (the latter which seems to have festered) between another anon poster, 69.202.60.86 and me? The crux of the disagreement is placement of a marriage mention in the Peter Jennings article: I contend that barring additional, notable information about the fourth wife, Kayce Freed, my introduction of a few words about their union by mention of her in a "Death" section is readable and well-placed given what we know about her: the larger public has come to learn about her only after Jennings' passing. The other anon asserts that the sentence should be added amid a section predominately about Peter's work, with (what I describe as) a POV transition for readability. I counter that some non-relevent chronological insertions work and that others do not and that the anon's re-placement falls in the second category, with or without the creative transition. You can read my tedious talk response to the anon's quibblings--the salient points are numbers 1 and 2--and a summary of the initial and follow-up edits. A "Personal life" section probably should be started which would include mention of Jennings' four marriages, his two children and other notables perhaps such as his great love of jazz or the scandal during his third marriage, now awkwardly inserted in the "Sole anchor" section. Thanks. 4.249.111.232 (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish L

Hi Angr,

About the velarized L in Irish phonology, for clarity and consistency I think we should use the same convention for all velarized consonants. Besides aesthetic considerations, it would be more accessible to our readers. There's nothing special about velarized L except that it occurs in English, which surely is irrelevant for Irish. As for it displaying better, that depends which font you're using. IMO we shouldn't make decisions of substance in order to accommodate font or browser defects. We could use the tilde with all velarized consonants, but that wouldn't show off the contrast with palatalization as nicely. kwami (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I find ɫ much more efficient and recognizable than lˠ, and l is one of the few letters that can take a swung dash through it and still look decent. It's probably the only letter whose version with a swung dash is at all well known. (And it's one of the few letters that has a separate Unicode point for the version with the swung dash that's present in most Unicode fonts.) And while it's technically true that the appearance of l̪ depends on what font you're using, the fact is that it will look bad in all proportional fonts; only monospace fonts will render it correctly. And I bet virtually nobody reads Wikipedia in a monospace font. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I might weigh in, I'd like to point out that there is already a tendency for the page's phonological representation to not perfectly represent the slender consonants with superscript j so that readers might easily see the relation of each slender consonant to its broad counterpart; /ʃ/ is paired with /sˠ/, /j/ with /ɣ/, /vʲ/ with /w/ etc.

In a parallel instance, I've represented the emphatic lateral as <lˤ> on Arabic phonology; this was partly for consistency and partly to be clear that this was not velarized (as in English) but pharyngealized. With Irish, because it parallel's English's velarness, readers are likely to assume that it's velarized rather than pharyngealized. On my computer, neither ɫ nor lˠ perfectly aligns with the dental diacritic but the dental diacritic is a bit redundant anyway.

So I guess I'm leaning towards keeping it with the swung dash but it is rather minor point and I wouldn't tear my hair out if we instead used the superscript gamma. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The dental diacritic isn't redundant since some dialects have a phonemic distinction between a dental velarized l and an alveolar velarized l. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But Angr, you're using two unrelated symbols for a single phonemic distinction, which strikes me as both inefficient and misleading. Also, the font problem isn't a matter of being proportional or monospace. I use a proportional font and l̪ˠ displays correctly; it's merely a matter of whether the font designer bothered to kern the font properly. Some of the SIL fonts are correctly proportioned, and we can expect that the number of properly designed IPA fonts will increase.

As for Ƶ§œš¹'s point, L is a case of deciding which diacritic to use, not which base letter. The pairs you brought up differ in more than just their secondary articulation, and so (except for /j/ & /ɣ/) aren't analogous. (The palatal-velar pairs would also be an argument against my case, but again don't address inconsistent use of diacritics.) kwami (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you don't think of ɫ as being an l with a diacritic, but as a completely different symbol, the way c isn't k with a diacritic, but an entirely different symbol. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is a diacritic. The tilde can be added to any consonant. That at least is how it's presented by the IPA. kwami (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Angr', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Angr (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, three years already. I'm so old! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hazel, etc.

At the risk of seeming unpleasant, I must say that your latest edit to Hazel (Watership Down) seems to be an instance of causing disruption to make a point. Some of the material you deleted might be "original research", but certainly not all of it. Please be selective. I suggest that you restore the material, and then edit it to eliminate any "OR".
Cordially, Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything I deleted was at least as OR-ish as what you deleted, if not more so. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you genuinely believe the material you deleted is "original research", you should restore it. Deleting it because the Black-Rabbit bit, which you hold is not OR, was deleted as OR, is not kosher -- exactly what I mean about point-making disruption. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If I restore everything I believe is not OR, that will include the bit about the Black Rabbit in the movie. If I do that, will you remove it again? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Black Rabbit bit is disputed, as you know, so you should not restore that unless there is consensus for its inclusion. What I or anyone else would do with the Black Rabbit bit if you did restore it is irrelevant to whether your bulk deletion should stand. It seems from your last post that you really did delete material on an "OR" pretext which you do not sincerely believe. Please restore all such material promptly. Such gamesmanship is not legitimate WP editing.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Black Rabbit bit is not the only part that's disputed, as you know, and there was no consensus for its deletion. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether its the only part that is (presently) disputed depends on whether you genuinely believe the stuff you deleted needs to be deleted as "OR". I'm still not sure whether you do or don't, but the longer this goes on the more it looks to me as though you really don't, and are just being difficult.
As for consensus, it's you who is trying to change the article by including the Black Rabbit bit, so it's you who needs consensus for its inclusion.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And you changed the article by adding this without seeking consensus. That's just as much OR as the Black Rabbit bit. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: It is perfectly legitimate to edit an article without seeking consensus for the edit ahead of time. Unopposed edits need not be discussed. Opposed edits are supposed to be taken up on the talkpage, and consensus sought there. Please see WP:BRD. And no, the stuff I wrote is not "just as much OR" as your Black Rabbit bit. It's straight out of the novel, with no interpretation. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't true. The novel never says Hazel died at all. It merely says, "It seemed to Hazel that he would not be needing his body any more, so he left it lying on the edge of the ditch". It's OR to interpret that as death -- perhaps he was just having an out-of-body experience and came back for his body later. "The strange rabbit ... passes seemingly unnoticed by any other rabbit but Hazel" is also OR; the text only says the young sentry paid the visitor no attention. As for the rest of what you wrote, it's as much OR as the Black Rabbit bit in the sense that 0 = 0. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)