User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 33

Veropedia invasion!

Do you really think it's likely that Veropedians are going to be influenced by the people who advertise on them? One of the (pitifully poor) reasons given in one of the Wikipedia Fund Drive blog entries against the idea of Wikipedia taking up advertising was that they would make TOO MUCH money. This suggests to me that they can afford to be picky with whose advertising they accept, and any attempt to perverse the content could be met with a termination of contract, right? How exactly do you envision that the influence would take place? Letters straight to the management who then have to try to secretly coerce the editors into doing their bidding? I don't see how they (advertisers) could possibly manage it. ----Seans Potato Business 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same way they influence TV stations and newspapers: by refusing to advertise if they don't like what they see. I don't have much confidence that Veropedia can really afford to lose advertisers since advertising seems to be their only source of income (they don't seem to sell anything), and they're set up as a for-profit company, i.e. they don't sell only enough advertising to cover their overhead (as non-profits who advertise do), they actually aim to make money with it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request

Angr. Happy New Year. If you ever have time, would you mind writing IPA transcriptions of the Old Gaelic forms of the names of relevant Scottish kings? This doesn't have to be historically accurate, just in line with the way they are standardly given. This would be all the Scottish kings before William the Lion, where these forms have become standard in scholarly literature. No, the audience who know IPA isn't likely to be much larger than that who already know how to pronounce them, but it's a start. You're the only user I know who's familiar both with Old/Middle Irish pronunciation and IPA. Here are the names concerned:

• Cináed mac Ailpín (this "p" usually comes aspiration, or sounding like an "f"; the name Alpín came into the Picto-Gaelic zone of northern Britain from northern British Elphin, some think ultimately from English Ælfwine)
• Domnall mac Ailpín
• Causantín mac Cináeda
• Áed mac Cináeda
• Giric mac Dúngail
• Eochaid
• Domnall mac Causantín
• Causantín mac Áeda
• Máel Coluim mac Domnaill
• Ildulb mac Causantín
• Dub mac Maíl Choluim
• Cuilén mac Ilduilb
• Amlaíb mac Ilduilb
• Cináed mac Maíl Choluim
• Causantín mac Cuiléin
• Cináed mac Duib
• Máel Coluim mac Cináeda
• Donnchad mac Crínáin
• Mac Bethad mac Findláich
• Lulach mac Gille Comgaín
• Máel Coluim mac Donnchada
• Domnall Bán mac Donnchada
• Donnchad mac Maíl Choluim
• Étgar mac Maíl Choluim
• Alaxandair mac Maíl Choluim
• Dabíd mac Maíl Choluim
• Máel Coluim mac Eanric

and for the sake of completion:

• Nechtán mac Der-Ilei / Nechtán mac Dargarto
• Óengus
• Bruide
• Uilliam mac Eanric
• Alaxandair mac Uilliam
• Alaxandair mac Alaxandair
• Roibert a Briuis

I appreciate you're prolly busy, and remember, anything is better than nothing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lena's kiss.jpg

I've added a rationale to Image:Lena's kiss.jpg. I wasn't too sure about what was needed, so please check to make sure that it's acceptable and, if you find that it is, remove the speedy delete template. Dookama (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Hmmm, I was thinking in the spirit of IPA chart for Italian, International Phonetic Alphabet for Hebrew, and Spanish Phonetic Transcription with IPA. The nice thing about IPA chart for English is how quickly it shows the pronunciation differences between RP GA and Australian English... and the other dialects that have been added since I last looked. Help:IPA doesn't quite do that. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I guess what you really did is merge International Phonetic Alphabet for English to English phonology but then redirect it to IPA chart for English. I was just worried because it looked like you made the redirect without actually importing the information, but I see you imported it elsewhere. That's cool too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strauss

Wow. This doesn't do anything to make your position look reasonable or well-considered. I can understand making remarks in frustration, but you might consider redacting it. As it is, I think it will convince people more and more that the move was correct. It certainly did that for me. I appreciate that you're a very knowledgeable person and a good editor, so I hope that better communication than this is possible. --Reuben (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I redacted it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing into further clarity the contempt you feel for those who disagree with you. --Reuben (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My contempt is for the preposterous idea that modern-day people have different names in different languages, and for xenophobia disguised as love of the English language we know all too well from the English-only movement. The result is that we now have an article on someone who never existed, and no article at all on one of the most important figures in modern German history. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who you think the contempt is directed at, contempt will never win anyone over to your point of view. It only makes you look unreasonable. If you're OK with that, it's your choice. --Reuben (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Franz Josef Strauss seems to have different names in German, let alone different languages. There are millions of German speakers who regularly spell his name with an ss. --Reuben (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, contempt towards Franz Josef Strauß, and towards Wikipedia's readers for that matter, won over plenty of people on the discussion page. The page move is a positive victory for those who would use contempt to push their POV. And Wikipedia is the poorer for it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have clearly not tried to understand the reasons why there was support for the move. Again, your choice. Now, you may have the last word. --Reuben (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IPA chart for English

Hello, I know you're an expert in linguistics. Why are these two characters Kwamikagami and Aeusoes1 changing the chart, and in the process not only making mistakes, but also making it more complicated than it needs to be? I thought that the article International Phonetic Alphabet for English (btw it now redirects to IPA chart for English) was for, a more in-depth look at phonetics in these dialects. Ie, they said for Australian English tore and tour are homophones, when in fact they are not. The Macquarie Dictionary transcribes "tore" as /toː/ and "tour" as either /tʊə/ or /tʉə/ (the latter being the more common pronunciation).
To me, I feel they are ruining the spirit that it was created in the first place, a simple phonemic chart. --203.220.171.32 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've since been informed that International Phonetic Alphabet for English was merged into English phonology, and I've had a sort of reasonable explanation on why they made changes to the chart. So only reply to my little rant, if you want to. Cheers. --203.220.171.32 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was the same as yours, but I think it's all working out. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Bonds-6.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bonds-6.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect at "Productive"

Do you know of any reason for why Productive and Productivity should direct to different articles?--Kiyarrllston 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, most links to Productive are in fact about linguistics, but not all, so maybe it should redirect to Productivity (disambiguation) instead. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:127817.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:127817.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". 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. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg

A rationale is now brought for each usage. I have bolded it in the text on the image page for ease of finding. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And each article is mentioned, and the bold has a reason. There does not need to be a separate template; that is absurd. However, I will clarify it even more for you. Give me a minute. -- Avi (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what WP:NFURG says. Mentioning each article is necessary but not sufficient; a separate rationale is needed for each article, because the purpose of the image in each article is different. (At least it had better be, otherwise the image will fail the significance requirement in one or more of the articles.) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A separate rationale has been given for each of the five articles. -- Avi (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your patience while I edited the image talk page -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Robopanda page deleted for nonsense?

Angr- I'd like to write the Robopanda page but find that you deleted an entry back in 2006 for the reason (nonsense). Was it really gibberish, or could I rewrite to make it acceptable? (ps I am brand new to this so excuse me for possible etiquette breach). thx Milw (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you want to write? What is a robopanda? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

personally...

I think the goal of Wikipedia is to be a potluck, and that the veganism is nice but nonessential. But it's refreshing to see someone actually spell out the parable -- the argument makes more sense to me that way than when people talk about the "law" of intellectual property (which, as a lawyer, I can't help but notice that most people on BOTH sides of the debate are getting wrong most of the time). Thanks! --M@rēino 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Noric language

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noric language, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive move proposal closure

Hi Angr! I would like to express doubt that a consensus will be achieved on that one. Both sides (of which I represent the move supporters) are firmly entrenched in their argumentation and apparently will not agree on the move proposal (I, for one, am yet to see a good enough argument to match the 41 to 1 preference in English literature for the name I suggested). Therefore I do not believe that a "no consensus" closure will do much good: I will make the same proposal in a month or so with the same arguments, and I'm pretty sure there will be "no consensus" there as well. So I think that in order to bring some kind of permanence to the debate, an unfortunate admin will have to analyze the arguments presented by the sides and make a decision based on those. I summarized the discussion here, but since I do represent one of the sides, it will probably be necessary to check the main textwall anyway.

Additionally, I think that the fact that the move to the current name was slipped through without any proposal or discussion, let alone consensus, is kind of unfair, since the new move now requires so much more time and effort. Therefore I would propose to temporarily move the article to the name that had at least some consensus on the talk page. Cheers, Illythr (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if you already know in advance that consensus will never be reached, the least disruptive thing to do is leave it alone and stop asking for it to be moved. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The name should be the one represented in the absolute majority of English scholarly sources on the issue, not the one that's unique to Wikipedia (and the odd Romanian source). --Illythr (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You already made that point and failed to garner consensus with it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy to vote to "agree" with what most scholars have to say on a given issue (although even that was achieved in our case). But very well, as proper procedure dictates, I'll make a new proposal in a while and try get a random military history admin to oversee it. I suppose an RFC can be started in case the new proposal will end like this one... Bah, to think that all this happened only because someone slipped his variant through at an opportune moment! --Illythr (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, how did you get no consensus reached if the vote was 9 supporting vs 6 opposing? PS. I was opposed to the basis on which the opposition was basing its vote.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Just in case you doubted that I went into the move in bad faith, consider this:

Based on this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)

Definitions

A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing. Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name.

A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public.

I didn't even need to ask for a move...
Non-English speakers had no right to vote!--mrg3105mrg3105 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has the option to share their opinion, however uninformed they may be. My main point was that there is no need for opinions where the facts are clear. But not to everyone, I suppose... --Illythr (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Washington Post front page.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Washington Post front page.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. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mischa

Sorry about that. I'll remove one of them if you want me to, although I think the second one shows her face better and her role in the story.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best; I just think the article is too short to support two non-free images, neither of which is really discussed critically. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I read in the article it seems that an image truly showing her primary role in the story would probably be too gory for the average reader. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thoughts

I like your thoughts at User:Angr/Reasons to leave (and at User:Angr/Reasons to stay, for that matter).

Point number 5 caught my particular attention, for the simple reason that I completely agree with it (and also with it being a potential reason to leave).

In your own opinion: Can any-anything ever be done about this, in the long run? I feel like it would afford an atmosphere of mutual education (and the willingness and openness to bet educated). But I have no idea how that could be implemented on a larger scale. Obviously, everyone is responsible for the exchanges they are having with others, and that also affects the general mood and spirit around Wikipedia. But it's never enough. What's worse: A certain crop of editors have some time ago become more or less "policy-literate", i.e. they have learned and assumed blocking tactics in order to maintain the status quo that allows bad habits to stay and procreate.

Sometimes I think a good mirror may do the trick, where people would e.g. have to initially prove their skills by writing an article (I know, it's another lame and barely viable criterion, but still). If only Sanger had thought of that instead of Citizendium, which will never take off.

Incidentally, I have full confidence that there are enough people who "get it". The difficulty is ""just"" to influence the community in a good direction and unite those. But that's impossible, isn't it? User:Dorftrottel 20:45, January 15, 2008

No, in my opinion, nothing can ever be done about, unfortunately, at least not without forking to a place with stricter rules on content. But that isn't a real solution either, because only Wikipedia is Wikipedia. No fork will ever capture the public's (and the media's) attention the way Wikipedia has. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, yeah. I read this short article (German) today, which scratches the surface of some of the deeper problems regarding community consensus etc. OTOH, maybe it's not the worst thing to abandon all hope, as it simultaneously includes (talking for myself only) to effectively realise that this is what we're stuck with. Makes taking up with the crap appear like an affordable price for having so much good and interesting things and so unexpactably few problems. User:Dorftrottel 07:51, January 16, 2008

Flavius?

What was wrong with the image Flavius Aetius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you give me the exact file name, I can find out. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A parable

I get your parable, which surprises me about your decision even more--mrg3105mrg3105 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jurij Koch

... was not born in Horka, Saxony. Just wanted to let you know. --87.234.93.126 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:An Siarach

Did you know User:Merovingian blocked User:An Siarach over the content altercations which took place on Middle Irish, this morning? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image question

Hello! Hope 2008 has started well. I have a quick fair-use question. I reckon that Image:Beauchamp.jpg and various similar video-game character pics are being used contrary to non-free content guidelines (seems like using a magazine cover/baseball card in the article on the person depicted, which is explicitly listed as a no-no at Wikipedia:Non-free content). Would this be your understanding or am I barking up the wrong tree? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you, but others might say it's fair use to illustrate the section Richard Beauchamp#Cultural portrayal. I'd take it to WP:Fair use review if I were you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Hi, you fully protected this article on December 26 due to edit wars. Do you think it has been long enough, and we could unprotect it?   jj137 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Angr

Hey man, this is your favorite least-qualified wikipedian linguist, me. First off, it's been way too long, how are ya man? Also, I have some news: I got into a linguistics class (finally!), so I shouldn't be quite so useless around here. Also, I've been thinking about the High German Consonant Shift and Scouse. In OHG, <z> has an uncertain value that is distinct from both /s/ and /θ/, and the lenition of /t/ in scouse is a slit-fricative, distinct from the two of them, so is it possible that the value of <z> was a slit fricative in OHG? TTYL.Cameron Nedland (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess; I've never really been able to remember the difference between slit fricatives and groove fricatives. I vaguely remembering hearing that OHG <s> was laminal and <z> was apical, like in Basque (unless it's the other way round in Basque). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But what I'm saying is that the High German Consonant Shift might be more similar to the lenition seen in Scouse. Any thoughts?Cameron Nedland (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely it started out that way, yes, but that doesn't prove that <z> was a slit fricative in OHG. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I haven't proven anything, I just wondered if my hypothesis was valid.Cameron Nedland (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Welsh language

Hello! I noticed your edit corrections on the History of the Welsh Language artical. THANK YOU! As author of 90% of the artical, I have no doubt that my standardized American English found its way in the artical. I am sure you would find more inadvertant American English rather then British English in other of my Welsh articals. It is in no way ment disrespectful, and I understand that it should be corrected. But as I am not a native British English speaker I beg forgiveness. Thanks again for spotting my errors!Drachenfyre (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, I'm American too! But it was Master Bigode, not you, who Americanized the spellings, so I don't see what you're apologizing for! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Pronunciation

Your query as to whether Help:Pronunciation was too hard has a hint of the schoolmaster about it. For people who know nothing of the invented letters IPA uses, yes, it is difficult. What are "significant differences" to you, because you know the symbols, are not obvious to those of us unschooled in the forms. And the use of italics for these symbols, which softens the lines, just adds to the difficulty. (It doesn't help that my 60-year-old eyes are often rebellious when I am on-Wiki late at night.) I can scan the charts quickly backwards: that is, when I know the sound, I can find it quickly and then apply the IPA, but looking for the IPA in order to identify the sound is much more taxing. I don't think that there is anything in what I have explained that would be useful on the article's discussion page, but perhaps it is helpful for you to understand why those of us without the training find simple things hard. I remember teaching the alphabet to a group of 4-year-olds. I was holding up flash cards, one in each hand, and asking the children if what was on the cards was the same or different. We went swimmingly along until I held up one Capital "A" in each hand. From the slowest to the brightest, each one said they were different. Completely puzzled, I did think to ask why they were different. A child in the front row, with that look of disgust that comes with the thought "how can teacher be so thick?", pointed to the car in my left hand and said: "That one has dirt on it." So, I am at that stage with IPA, and a lot of the symbols have dirt on them. Thanks for the pointer to the guide, though. It may be very helpful at some later stage. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My question was in response to someone who said he wished Wikipedia had a page where the IPA was introduced in an easy-to-understand way. I thought that Help:Pronunciation was easy to understand. IPA characters should never be written in italics, so feel free to deitalicize them if you find them that way. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And there I go, wasting a perfectly good story on a comment not even meant for me. :-) Thanks for being gentle in your correction. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)