User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Archive 2

That volcano, again
Hello

In answer to your query (here), my question was mainly a challenge to the previous editor, an IP from Virginia with yet more advice on how to pronounce the name...

But my questions may well have been answered;

I understand "jokull" translates as "glacier", which is a fairly imprecise term; I wondered which definition(s) of glacier (here) it equates to.


 * It's a colloquial term applied to any permanent ice sheet. There are more precise terms (like skriðjökull for outlet glacier) but these sometimes get mixed up.
 * It’s the same in English, the terms have both a specific scientific, and a colloquial meaning. Colloquially, “glacier” is usually used just to denote “a river of ice”, like an outlet glacier.

Also if the mountain under the glacier/ice-cap had a name of its own, or if "Eyjafjallajökull" applied to both.


 * Hopefully this will answer that.
 * I does; (I never thought of looking there!). Regarding the “mountain under the glacier” comment, though, I’d made the same assumption, that the icecap sat on a single volcanic massif, rather than a range of separate peaks. Live and learn!

And finally I wondered if the suffix "–jokull" was applied colloquially to any ice-capped mountain ( in the manner of Glacier Peak, or Snaefell, or Snowdon) separate from its actual meaning.


 * In practice pretty much any such peak in Iceland is also on a glacier, but no. Jökull implies an ice sheet, it isn't used for areas with a light permanent snow or ice cover.

Can you shed any light on any of those? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, its been helpful. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I also am wondering about the letter "ll". It seems, like the Welsh ll, to have a particular (and tricky) pronunciation, but there’s nothing on the ll or digraph pages about it: Can you shed any light on this? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The double-l is a distinct sound in Iceland, I'm not aware of any current Wikipedia article that explains it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm; I might have a go at that, if I can get my head around it. It seems to be a Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative, approximating to a "tl" or "dl" sound (the Welsh is more of a "kl" or "chl" sound). would that be right? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like that. I don't know Welsh. It's made by blowing air to one side of your mouth with your teeth slightly apart. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks! Moonraker12 (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tagline
Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Open Street Map
Hi. I've done a lot of work to making pin maps on wikipedia from OpenStreetMap, recently I created en:Template:Location map Norway Oslo actually to display landmarks!! However I just came across the geohack on German wiki. When you click the geo globe on German wiki now it features on the open street map at different zoomable levels without having to leave the site. This would absolustely ideal for english wikipedia and end a long term disagreement over set pin maps and to provide the option for zoomable maps iwthin wikipedia itself. Could you please import the technology they are using on German wikipedia to display open street maps within the wiki site itself. This would be perfect and would mean we could probably not bother with the city pins. Would it be possible to display these zoomable open street maps within article infoboxes themselves? An example. See Harris Theater. If we had the zoomable open street map within the infobox theatre we would not need that pin locator. By default there could be none but a "Click map" option within the infobox. When you click it, it would then display the open street map zoomable as shown here [here. Can you do this? It would be extremely beneficial to us.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| Dr. Blofeld  ]]     White cat 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Template in signature
I believe your  in your signature is confusing archiving bots (it also probably runs counter to WP:SIG). Could you please replace this with "User talk"? Thanks! 14:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File:AAAAAA Bullet.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AAAAAA Bullet.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILY s  (TALK) 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Accessory fruit
Category:Accessory fruit, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse
You can see my opinion of the article status in my comments on the talk page, but lead sections should summarize content, not introduce new material that appears no where else. So while some editors might be thrilled to put something like that there, it simply does not belong there. I am sure that you can find a more appropriate place than where I thought it could be located. Apteva (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about it needing to appear elsewhere, there definitely should be some overview of the overall nature of the abuse in the article, which it's missing now.
 * But I think the intro should also be explicit as early as possible about the nature of these cases. With your edit the intro just says that there have been criminal prosecutions, but doesn't mention for what.
 * Anyway I'm not invested in this article at all, I just changed the word sodomy to anal sex because that's clearly what it meant, and "sodomy" in that context was ambiguous. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And your reason in thinking it should be as early as possible is? To shock as many people as possible? To provide a how to manual for potential abusers? Apteva (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those. Since you seem to be making some assumptions on my stance based on the nature of the subject matter pretend for a moment that this article was about something completely different, like some band showing up for a carnival and singing a song. The intro for that article should outline:
 * Where it was
 * Which band was playing
 * What song they played
 * Why it's significant
 * Without mentioning the specific acts (or in this analogy, the song) the article is unclear. Note also that I didn't introduce that section to the intro, I only eliminated some ambiguity from it, and then reverted your move of it because I thought it made the intro less clear.
 * I don't really see why you'd think it would be shocking to be as detailed as possible without undue verbosity in an intro for any article, presenting an accurate idea of the subject matter should be the goal of any introduction to an article, and having for ginormous paragraphs in that article without spending half a sentence describing what sort of abuse went on exactly just makes it a bad intro IMO.
 * And as an aside I'm quite sure that catholic priests looking to commit child abuse don't need to go to Wikipedia to figure out what sort of abuse they should be carrying out. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The specific key the song was in or two of the notes played, though, hardly make the most important part of the lead. The subject of the article is that abuse occurred, not what the abuse was. It is fine to get into details in the body, but putting details in the lead detracts from the purpose of the article. This is not an article that I have seen before, and I would have done the same had it said "sodomy" or "fornication". I am not writing you because of who might have written the article, but because of who reverted what to me was a quite reasonable edit, in the hope that you might find a better way of improving the article. The article, as I mentioned, is a disaster, though, so hopefully someone will take an interest in its improvement. Apteva (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

About inline links at The Onion
We strongly discourage inline external links here (see WP:EL. If the link is important enough to use as a citation, then format it as a citation. Otherwise, don't include it at all. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that makes for very bad formatting in this case, the whole point of that section is to mention specific articles by the onion, so why shouldn't they be linked inline? They're not citations in this case.
 * By making them citations you keep having to click on the citation, then click on the link, then click on the up arrow to go back, it makes for a really bad experience when reading the article. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Eyebrow.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eyebrow.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 99of9 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg
 * File:Pier.jpeg
 * File:Little Belt - Lighthouse in middlefart.jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Closeup of pile - 02).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Closeup of pile - 03).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Underneath - 02).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Near - 02).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Closeup of pile - 01).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Underneath - 01).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Under the bridge - 03).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Under the bridge - 02).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Near - 01).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (scaffold - 01).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 03).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (scaffold - 04).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (scaffold - 05).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Train).jpeg
 * File:Little Belt Bridge (1970) (Under the bridge - 01).jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (top).jpeg
 * File:Boat - Little Belt - 02.jpeg
 * File:IBook G3 - Front view.jpeg
 * File:Boat - Little Belt - 01.jpeg
 * File:Kongebro.jpeg
 * File:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (close).jpeg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Free Software Foundation board of directors
Category:Members of the Free Software Foundation board of directors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikinews
Template:Wikinews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AAAAAA_Bullet.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AAAAAA_Bullet.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Hampton11235 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Detritus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detritus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Detritus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS 4444 Talk  02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I'd completely forgotten that I started this article and didn't think it would ever be controversial enough to have it listed for deletion. For what it's worth I wrote it when I was looking into various biological systems.


 * I can see where you're coming from by listing it as being too close to a dictionary entry, but as a reader I think Wikipedia's a lot more useful when you can click from a phrase like "this organism eats detritus" and do a reverse lookup as it were. E.g. if you arrived at it from reading about a fungi that feeds on detritus, you might also learn about all the other stuff that eats it and how it fits into the food chain. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of flags by number of colors


The article List of flags by number of colors has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Original research. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of flags by number of colors for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of flags by number of colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Final Fantasy (film). Since you had some involvement with the Final Fantasy (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)