User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 16

question about Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg
Hi, I put the PUIdisputed tag on Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg because it was incorrectly marked as web-screenshot and there didn't seem to be a fair use rationale, especially when the watermark indicated that the site's operators didn't want people using the image without their permission.

I'm not out to get the image deleted but can you explain why the PUI dispute was considered resolved? Thanks. Ytny 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess because no one had discussed it any more since July 17. I didn't see that the discussion indicated the image should be deleted, nor did I see any evidence the discussion was ongoing. Anyway, I've moved the PUI discussion to Image talk:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg. User:Angr 07:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

re:insular celtic languages
posted reply to your q on my own talk page --Green ink 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (moved rest of discussion to Talk:Insular Celtic languages

Canon Doctor Terry Slater Page
Hey you deleted my Canon Doctor Terry Slater page for absolitely no reason. You stated there wasn't enough evidence for his notability yet I gave you the name of his book, the date it was published and the publisher. Stop interfering!
 * Actually, no you didn't; you just gave the name of the book, with no publication information. The article I deleted gave no indication that Dr. Slater is more notable than other academics. Please read WP:BIO and WP:PROF. User:Angr 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Software Ecosystem Page Deletion?
Hello, I see you deleted "Software ecosystem" article:

18:31, 2 April 2006 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Software ecosystem" (PROD)

Could you tell me why yo removed it please?

I need to reference it. Cheers now3d


 * "PROD" means it was proposed for deletion and no one objected within five days. If you'd like me to undelete it for you, I can, although it may still be nominated for deletion. User:Angr 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please undelete it. 5 days is too short a period, please can you reivse that to 3 months. Cheers, now3d

Please delete images
The following user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisSimpson&action=history has been deleting warnings of images with illegal copyrighted material being uploaded by him. He has deliberately refused to acknowledge or deal with anyone who has problems with images he has uploaded. The following images are uploaded without proper license, have been tagged for ages and should be deleted (some are recently re-tagged for deletion by me but were already tagged for over 1 month):
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lionel.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MaisonGdMere.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OxfordAppt.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BassineEmportee.jpg
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Appt.jpg

You originally tagged these images I think, I asked Tyrenius however he pointed you out as a more likely avenue and I do think this is your call as you have already attempted to deal with him. This is basically the same as the message I left with Tyrenius (i appologise for the minor non-specific nature of the request)

He has also uploaded images of all the victims, these are however, small and probably fair use, and will be correctly tagged by me. Thanks for any help--I&#39;ll bring the food 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He hasn't been removing tags from images, though, and that's all that really matters. Once he's read the warning on his talk page that the image will be deleted if he doesn't act, he's free to remove the warning. (It's not a warning about his conduct, after all.) However, the point of keeping images up at PUI for 2 weeks is to allow the uploader time to fix them, and by removing the warnings from his talk page he's saying he doesn't intend to. So I'll go ahead and delete them now. User:Angr 08:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

General Zia, General Rahimuddin Khan Taggings
Hey, thanks for tagging all of Dictator Asad's pictures, and I think one of mine. The pictures had completely incorrect sources, but I've rectified the problem now, and most of his pics and my uploaded one have been listed under fair use with the appropriate sources and rationales. Thanks again. --Saqib22 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Szlaszewski
Hello there. I noticed you took the liberty to delete an article on Stefan Szlaszewski without any voting nor discussion (not to mention notification of the author), claiming the guy was non-notable. Could you possibly restore it? Just in case you wondered, a high-ranking officer of the armed forces (a Colonel) and a person awarded with the country's highest military award (Virtuti Militari) is certainly notable enough to merit separate article. Besides, this particular guy is notable as the CO of only one of six units of the Podhale Rifles. There were circa 300 or more regiments in the Polish Army altogether, but only six prestigious Podhale Rifles regiments - and the guy was a CO of one of them, which makes him even more notable. Thanks in advance.  // Halibutt 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is customarily done without a vote or notification of the author. Nothing in the article asserted that he was in any way more notable than any of the hundreds of thousands of colonels in armies around the world. Being a commanding officer of a military unit is hardly unusual for a colonel. The article didn't even mention that he was awarded the Virtuti Militari, though again, there must be hundreds of people awarded their country's highest military award every year, so even that isn't particularly notable. I don't see any way that speedy deletion under criterion A7 was unjustified. User:Angr 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned, there were not thousands, but exactly six of people of that class at that time. Six. Also, the highest military award is the highest specifically because it's not awarded to just anyone. To give you a hint, for the entire World War II, fought by the Polish forces on all fronts and at home, there were some 5000 Virtuti Militari recipients altogether. Compare that to millions of Poles to take part in the war. Anyway, you could have asked me to expand the article if you were unsure of the notability - and apparently this was the case. Anyway, I'm restoring the stub and will do some work on it in the future. And I must admit that I'd appreciate it if you were less trigger-happy in the future. Cheers!  // Halibutt 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Debian-package-cycle.png
Hi Angr, yesterday I received a notification from Fritz Saalfeld (see my talk page) that the above image is listed under possibly unfree. Unfortunately I had not the chance to do anything about that as the image was deleted within 1 day by you. The image is surely under the artistic license (if I am not mistaken this was noted on the page) and I am pretty sure I have a permission (by email) to use it under GFDL. Therefore, I ask you to restore the image / page for a few days in order to give me the chance to prove the we rightly can use the image.

Thanks and best regards from Munich -- mkrohn
 * Okay. Mostly it was deleted because it was tagged as a screenshot, which it pretty clearly wasn't. Please forward a copy of the e-mail giving permission to use it under the GFDL to permissions@wikimedia.org. From reading the Artistic License article, I don't think that license by itself is free enough. User:Angr 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I could not find his email thus I wrote him asking whether he could release it under GFDL and/or CC/SA and to cc to permissions@wikimedia.org. -- mkrohn 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: we have the permission of Martin to use his images (he also sent a copy to permissions AT wikipedia.org). I will update the file information in a couple of minutes. Thanks for your help! -- mkrohn 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: we have the permission of Martin to use his images (he also sent a copy to permissions AT wikipedia.org). I will update the file information in a couple of minutes. Thanks for your help! -- mkrohn 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Matters of wikiphilosophy
Hi. Discussion, illustration and attempted enforcement of wikiphilosophies belong on the respective pages associated with that philosophy, not in individual FACs. Your objections to several FACs on the basis of subjective fair use criteria are inappropriate and inconsiderate of the work that's been conducted on those pages. It looks like you copy-pasted the same response to every FAC, only to change it to add the respective kb and image count associated.

This is disrespectful to your fellow editors and the dedication they have poured into developing their articles. FAC is a place to judge articles based on their own merits, not a playground for enforcing personal interpretations of subjective concepts. If you'd like to see such a concept enforced in FACs, first discuss the matter where it belongs and get it to become policy that we can't use images. Until then, discussion of the matter doesn't belong in FAC. Ryu Kaze 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Attempting to enforce the single most widely flouted Wikipedia policy, at the very least in those articles that some would have us believe reflect Wikipedia's best work, is entirely appropriate. When my fellow editors' "dedication" consists of stealing other peoples' images and putting them into articles, I feel entirely justified in refusing to stand by and let them get rewarded for it. Why on earth should any article be called "Wikipedia's best" and possibly be featured on the front page when it's full of images that someone unaffiliated with Wikipedia worked hard and/or paid lots of money to produce? It's disgusting that there are already so many FAs that violate fair-use policy, and I will continue to object to future FACs that do. User:Angr 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize that fair use is codified in copyright law, right? Whatever your personal moral standing on the matter is, that has no place in Wikipedia. Nor does mine. In the capacity of being editors, we have to check our personal feelings at the door and recognize policies and legal codes — even if we don't agree with them — as they apply. If we can't do that, then we can't be productive editors here. If we're going to be, we have to agree to recognize how Wikipdia operates. Ryu Kaze 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realize that, no it isn't, right? Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright violation, but it's never defined. As the article fair use makes clear, there are only some guidelines to consider when deciding whether or not something is fair use, but it doesn't tell you how to interpret those guidelines. Legal precedents give some guide as to how courts have interpreted in the past, but only a lawsuit against Wikipedia will determine whether the images you stole for your article can be defended as "fair use" or not. I'd rather there not be such a lawsuit in the first place. User:Angr 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... it either is or it isn't, and given that it exists, it is. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. And again, we check our personal ideas of morality at the door when we come to work on Wikipedia and we do things according to Wikipedia's design. As Wikipedia allows for fair use images and encourages their use, we can use them. Until policy has been altered such that we can't, we can and will do so. And please stop slinging around the word "steal". Your accusation is horrid, disrespectful, inaccurate and extremely unappreciated. Drop it. Ryu Kaze 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It exists, but it isn't codified, as you claimed. And where you get the idea that Wikipedia editors have to leave their morality at the door, I truly don't understand. Wikipedia tolerates fair use images when they are absolutely indispensable; it by no means encourages their use. And if you have a suggestion for another word meaning "to take someone else's property without their permission" besides "steal", I'd be glad to hear it. User:Angr 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not codified with black and white specifics, no, but it's been included within the law. As for where I get the idea that Wikipdia editors have to leave their morality at the door is from the policies. Examples: neutral point of view and no censorship. If we have a personal moral opinion of something, we can't put that in an article or try forcing Wikipedia to operate according to that opinion. If we feel that it's wrong for relevant images of pornography to be viewable, we can't get rid of them just because we feel that way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, as such, doesn't care about such things.


 * As for encouraging or not encouraging, of course images that don't have to be qualified under fair use are preferred, but the fact that the encyclopedia recognizes the exception that is fair use, informs us of it, and explains to us how to implement it is encouraging when a free alternative isn't available. The Wikimedia Foundation could have easily said that images that aren't altogether free of copyright holders are not allowed. They didn't, however.


 * In any event, how are we "taking someone else's property"? We're not claiming it as our own. Stealing something is to take it for yourself, to give and use and claim as you see fit. We're not doing that. We're trying to better describe their work in a respectable manner, all the while giving them full credit for the illustration, and readily willing to remove the images if they should ask that it be so. Do you know how many screenshots video game websites like IGN and GameSpot have? Do you think the developers see that as stealing their work? How many years have they had by now to demand that it be taken down?


 * They understand that those images are being used to show people what the work is about, which in turn equals more people having an interest in the work, which in turn equals more people buying the work, which in turn equals more profit for the developers. This isn't like copying someone's book and posting it on the internet. You can't fully get the experience of a game out of looking at a handful of screenshots that attempt to succintly describe the game. Ryu Kaze 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV and no censorship apply to article content only. I'm perfectly entitled to hold my POV that fair-use images have no business in an encyclopedia touting itself as free content, and to reflect that view when voting against FACs. Your last two paragraphs above make me think you interpret your encyclopedia article as a form of advertising for the game, which is even more worrisome than your instance on using "fair use" images in it. If an encyclopedia article results in more people buying the game and increasing the developers' profits, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the encyclopedia article. User:Angr 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that the article was advertising for the game. I was pointing out the logical flaw in your accusation.


 * In any event, you are perfectly entitled to have your POV. You're not perfectly entitled to push it as fact and policy when it isn't. The standard for FACs isn't the Gospel According to Angr. If it becomes official policy that we don't use fair use images, then the presence of fair use images will become grounds for objection. Not before. Please try to understand this. If you want your opinion of fair use images to be grounds for objection in FACs, then make an effort to have Wikipedia policy changed — and succeed. Until then, you're just disrespecting people and cluttering FACs based on your own personal opinion which can't be supported by anything but itself. That's really what this boils down to and I don't see what more there is to be said about the matter until policy has changed. Ryu Kaze 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am objecting to FACs based on existing policy, not policy as I wish it were. User:Angr 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Existing policy allows for fair use images and doesn't mean "zero" when it says "as little as possible". That clearly doesn't mean "as little as is technically possible". It means "as little as is possible in terms of contributing significantly" and "as little as is possible where free alternatives may be available". So, no, you haven't been. Really, if you want to get this policy changed, work to get it changed. Ryu Kaze 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In my vote, I didn't say the article should have zero images, I said it should have one or two. If I were voting on the basis of my personal wikiphilosophy, I would vote against every single FAC simply on the grounds that having any "featured articles" at all is a profoundly stupid idea. But opposing an FAC on the grounds that it uses more "fair use" images than it needs is sticking to existing policy. User:Angr 10:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

English articles
Hi, Angr! Would you be able to help us out at Talk:The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman, please? We are having trouble with the articles in this (pardon the pun) article's title. Nothing major. Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pic
What I have to do in order the picture "Nicaragua boy" wont be deleted?--Granada 06:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Get permission in writing from the photographer or other copyright holder to have it released either into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Copies of your request and the copyright holder's permission should be forwarded by e-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org. User:Angr 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The photographer is me of course¡¡¡ I am a spaniard photographer seattled in Nicaragua. My pics are used by some organization, newspapper, etc. Some pics that appears in internet were mine. These pics are from Nicaraguan people, landscape, street, etc. I doesn´t matter to me if anybody use it to show information about the country. I don´t claim if a person or organization wants to use it. So tell me now what can I do?. --Granada 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't realize you were the photographer. When I found the same photo at http://www.westonpriory.org/nicaragua/nic.html it seemed likely that it had just been lifted from that site. User:Angr 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

about adding URL
Hi Angr, I just noticed you removed a URL that i added to the Yiddish Language site with the remark it contains popup adds. I am not entirely sure about Wikimedia policy regarding adding URL's but my site (a non-commercial one intended to point scholars in the direction of archives etc) has no popup windows or any form of advertising on it (it is a Virtual Library site and such a thing is also contrary to VL standards). So i wonder what the problem was, perhaps something is going on i am not aware of. Best, Gerben
 * Well, when I opened it, I got a popup ad. Wikipedia's guidelines about external links can be found at External links. User:Angr 11:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked the site on both Windows and Mac platforms with different browsers: no popup ad appears. Can you specify what the popup was?G.B.Z. 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The URL in the popup is http://ilead.itrack.it, but the ad itself is for private health insurance, written in German (I'm in Germany). User:Angr 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Angr, thanks for the information. I just found out that the webstat counter on the page is causing the popup to appear. I had no idea this happened so happy to have found it out. I will remove the counter and relist the site when this is solved. G.B.Z. 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! User:Angr 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cats and Coffee warning
Hi. Please will you take a look at this article. I slapped a prod on it, and the editor has gamely sourced some refs. I now feel I'm not experienced enough to decide if they've made a good enough case for me to remove my prod, so I'd welcome some advice. Thanks, --Dweller 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Either you made a typo in the link or someone has already speedied it. It's a red link for me now. User:Angr 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Found it at Cats and Coffee warning. I put a prod2 on it. Just because they can show sources of it being used still doesn't entitle a neologism to a Wikipedia entry. User:Angr 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Sorry for clumsy titling, now fixed (above)! What I was thinking about was that a neologism can be notable. War against Terror comes to mind and then what level of evidence is required to demonstrate that notability. Anyway, thanks for the prod2, as well as the advice. --Dweller 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the stub... I've merged into news.admin.net-abuse.email which seems to be the best way to resolve the issue. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the porcelain this time
Can I ask you to delete this history? Stefán Ingi 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Timisoara&Brasov images
What a fuck is your problem with that pictures taken by me???? are you fuckin insane? You have no right to remove them as long as their status are all right, understood?????? Arthur 15 August 2006
 * I have no problem with images taken by you. I have a big problem with images you've lifted from web sites and then uploaded here under a false claim of being the photographer. User:Angr 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII FAC
I've made several changes to the use of images. Please check them out. Ryu Kaze 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've also gone through a bunch of other articles and shrunk the images to make sure they meet fair-use size. Ryu Kaze 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. If I'm bugging you, apologies (I assume I'm not since you've been quite active today according to your contribution page), but I'd like to ask again if you could drop in at the FAC and let us know if your concerns have been addressed. Susbstantial action was taken to accomodate the issues you and AMIB brought up with the images, so I'd appreciate some feedback on that. I made a list of all the changes I made, which you can read in the FAC. Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for coming back to comment. I've clarified what is meant in the images' fair-use rationale by "distinctive art style" for each image and added additional fair-use rationale where necessary. Please have a look at, , , and. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Angr. Any chance of getting some additional feedback from you soon? I hope that my elaborations in the fair-use rationale have brushed away your concerns. While I haven't thought every objection you've ever made was a good one (though, in this FAC, I have; that's why I've been making an effort to address your and AMIB's image concerns; they were well-grounded; at the very least, I've understood your concerns and made an effort to explain why such-and-such image was notable/necessary/representative of the game's art style). Come back as soon as you get a chance, please. Ryu Kaze 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Vorkuta
And again, I found a pretty useful image that's been without any explanation given. Sorry to say so, but it seems to me the deletion was your voice in a dispute that's been going on about the image. Or is there something I'm missing? Cheers!  // Halibutt 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted because it lacked source information and had been so tagged for at least 7 days. That's what "I4" in the deletion summary means: speedy criterion I4. Ironically enough, you yourself were the one to mark it as lacking source information. User:Angr 07:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I didn't know that was how the matter ended - or I already forgot :)  // Halibutt 07:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion of licensed image
I noticed that you unilaterally deleted, both on Commons on here. On Commons there had been some debate about the pic...However, here, on English Wikipedia there has not been any objections to the picture as qualifying to the fair use license, which states that reproduction of billboards - even if they have copyright - is fair use according to US copyright (which applies since the Wikipedia servers are located in the US). An anon user has however continued to tag the image, but as they refused to argue the case, the image ended up being semi-protected. I tried several times, without any succes, to persuade the anon user to argue their case on the talk page...So I am indeed surprised that someone (even with admin status I assume) unilatarely deletes an image to which the debate demonstrated consensus on its fair use. Did you not even have a look at the talk page before deleting??? Bertilvidet 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the talk page. And I read the text of Politicalposter, which says "for identification and critical commentary on   the poster itself or the political movement it represents", which is not how the image was being used in the article. And I saw that the image had no fair-use rationale even though it had been uploaded more than two weeks before. User:Angr 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For another time I wish you will care to express your views on the talk page before deleting, especially when the consensus is the in disacord with you opinion. I have no idea how the use of the image can be interpreted as not being "for identification and critical commentary on the poster itself or the political movement it represents". But I guess its not worth spending my time debating these issues, when you have the power to delete without taking discussions into account or even airing your views. Bertilvidet 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the image one way or the other. I read the discussion and saw no valid fair-use arguments being made, let alone consensus on the matter. If you care to write up a fair-use rationale for the image and show that its use in the article is consistent with the Politicalposter tag, I will be glad to undelete it for you. User:Angr 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically the image has been used "for identification and critical commentary on the poster itself or the political movement it represents", as it was on articles related to Nasrallh himself and his Hezbollah organization. I dont know what other rationel to give. On the talk page I asked possible concerns to be raised - noone cared to do so. Bertilvidet 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time I deleted it, it was being used only at Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which contains no discussion of this poster at all, and mentions Hezbollah only in terms of their actions on that day. No critical commentary, no identification needed. The image was being used only to show what someone mentioned in the paragraph looks like, which is not consistent with fair-use policy. User:Angr 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you removed my entry for English keywords
Hello, I want you to know that there is a reason that I put those there. The reason is first and foremost because they need to be found somewhere. Moreover, I did a search for nearly one hour, using google, to find a webpage that contained a simple list of english keywords and their functions. Yet, I did not find a single web page. Therefore, I found it absolutely necessary to compile a list of these essential words in the english language. In my opinion, while they are used for rhetoric, they are also used in a striclty grammatical sense for structural composition, reasoning, and understanding. Since you are a Ph.D. in linguistics (i saw on your home page), I would like to request that you either accept these as part of the english language entry (which in my opinion it should be) or somehow characterize them into a sub-entry or rhetoric or compositional entry. Its funny how you mention that they are part of rhetoric, yet there is no rhetoric wiki page for english. In any case, the existence of these functional english keywords on wiki is absolutely necessary, wherever it may be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericdz33 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 August 2006  (UTC)
 * I deleted it primarily because it's not really about the English language per se, it's about the usage of individual words in writing. The same comments could be made about the equivalent words in any other language, so there's nothing specifically about English in the section. There are also more policy-oriented reasons to delete the section: it does not cite any reliable sources, making it unverifiable; it seems to be mostly original research on your part. User:Angr 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that you should undelete it and find somewhere to put. Otherwise, I will continue to post it because, while you state citability and verifiability as policy, there is no full-fledged enforced policy that wikipedia users must abide by.  The keyword here is "must".  That is a word that brings to light the actual policy of wikipedia as one of "should" and not "must". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericdz33 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Uh, actually, Verifiability and No original research are policies which users must abide by. Ryu Kaze 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche back edit warring
- on Scandinavia, again. I think he may have broken 3RR already. Just so you know. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It's probably time there was an RFC about him. User:Angr 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lan
You speedy deleted this template as "previously deleted content". Fair enough, although there is of course no reasonable way the creator (I) could have known that this same context was previousy deleted. I wish to point out, however, the falsehood of a claim made in the discussion, namely that the use of the template saves no typing. But just compare these two:

--Lambiam Talk 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends, of course, on the length of the language name in question. There isn't a great savings in the following:

Yi Yi
 * Anyway, the more important point to my mind is that the point of templates is to hold material that needs to be presented in a uniform way on many pages, not to save a few letters in typing. User:Angr 10:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

dolos
You asked: ''Hi, is there any reason you replaced the high-resolution version of Image:Dolos.jpg with a lower-res version? Wikipedia prefers to have high-resolution images wherever possible.'' Yup I know. No good reason other than that I had not yet worked out how to scale images and because the image is way way way too large for any purpose at all. Feel free to change it. --Adam Brink 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging: Image:120px-Cape_Town_city_flag.gif
Sorry about the mess. The issue of sourcing of this file came under intense debate here: at WP:FAC - in fact the page involved was promoted. See here. What must be done from here? Please help me. -- Chris Lester   talk  16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the discussion there is about the coat of arms image, not the flag image. For the flag, at the very least you need to give the URL of the page you got it from (it isn't on http://www.capetown.gov.za/, the page listed on the image description page). Also, the Logo tag shouldn't be used, as a flag isn't the same thing as a logo. The Insignia tag should be used, but it has to be in addition to the copyright tag, it isn't a copyright tag itself. Now, for some reason I don't understand, flags are treated like coats-of-arms here, in that whoever draws a particular rendering of a flag gets to license that particular version of it. (Image:Flag of South Africa.svg is apparently in the public domain simply because User:SKopp drew that version of it and put it into the public domain.) I'd say the best way to keep the image of the Cape Town flag is to draw a version of it yourself, or ask some other Wikipedian to do so if you're not much of an artist. User:Angr 04:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of the ICB2 page.
I would like to request that you unlock the "ICB2" Wikipedia entry.

According to the history of the page, it has been locked since late March, and I believe that the deletion and locking of the page was an unnecessary and unproductive action; the page referenced a unique, active community that has roots in and connections with the "Insider Community Board" mentioned on the "IGN" page, and removing it not only serves as a way to morally undermine the foundation of the community, but also deprives new members of the community of customs, inside jokes, and other niceties that may not be readily apparent. From things I've read, there are several different (though unstated) reasons for having taken down the page, varying from the importance of the website as dictated by a web traffic counter to the fact that "some facts were unverifiable" to "the user base of this site is too small to justify a page".

Seeing as how Wikipedia is a user-maintained community (and the fact that the ICB2ers did maintain the page when it was still active), it certainly did no harm or served no ill purpose when the page existed; it was not sloppily constructed and poorly maintained like many Wikipedia pages that still float unnoticed, and the integrity of the page and its information (facts included) had been maintained by the community of the ICB2.

Though many may not expressly view it as an extension of IGN, the Insider Community Board at IGN was the basis for the creation of the ICB2, employing very much of the same user base as the ICB (with more users than the ICB, explained further down), but with more emoticons, markup, and other qualities than what IGN employs, and more freedom on how users can post (and thus the ability to openly express viewpoints and criticims) with little fear of punishment or retribution from a biased moderator or authority figure. Best of all, the ICB2 is completely FREE (as opposed to access to IGN's ICB, which requires an "Insider" subscription that costs $19.95 a year just to access), and thus these people do not have to pay just to stay in contact with friends in an open forum. However, the ability of new users to adjust to the board system and current users to maintain a record of its customs, jokes, etc. is severely diminished by the inability to put a page on Wikipedia.

Many people (myself included) would not be able to find information and sites like the ICB2's if each one was quashed so swiftly and with little research. Some people (myself included) use Wikipedia to confirm things they don't know exist, or know very little about. Stopping the re-creation of that page is akin to preventing people from finding it on Wikipedia, just to see if it's there. After all, since both the ICB and the ICB2 employ much of the same userbase, wouldn't it be fair to say that the ICB does not deserve mention on the IGN page since it employs the same users, but with less freedom?

Please take this into consideration; please do not ruin this opportunity to foster debate and free thought.
 * The page was deleted after discussion at Articles for deletion/ICB2. If you would like to argue for its undeletion, the place to do so is WP:DRV. User:Angr 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakization
Hi Angr. I saw your comment at the AfD page, so I decided to add references to the article. One of them is a UNESCO report on Slovakia. Hope that does the trick. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a start, but I'd like to see the article actually expanded on the basis of those references before I can change my vote to "keep". User:Angr 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll get around to doing that eventually. It's just that whenever I add something it gets deleted because a user thinks it's "wrong". They don't seem to understand WP:V. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that. I've got it on my watchlist and will help revert removal of sourced statements. User:Angr 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think semi-protection will be necessary soon. (62.2.170.132 and all the other IPs are none other than the permabanned User:Bonaparte) &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
While on the subject of featured articles, why is it that you would oppose any article you've created being promoted to that status (and on what basis exactly)? That status doesn't imply that an article is finished (look at Final Fantasy VI for instance; one of the sections is about an upcoming rerelease; as such, the section is labeled with a "future game" template). The FA template placed on FAs' talk pages even says "If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute". The status only implies that it's of a certain quality. Ryu Kaze 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Officially it isn't supposed to imply that an article is finished, but de facto it does. All too often I have attempted to make improvements or additions to a featured article, only to have them reverted by the page's "protector" with the argument "this is the version the article was featured with". So it seems to me that FA status stagnates the page and hinders growth. If any page I've contributed a lot to were nominated, I would certainly oppose on the grounds of incompleteness. If I were feeling especially sarcastic, I might also oppose on the grounds that the writing is too good. Almost every time I read "Today's featured article" from the main page, I shake my head in dismay at the poor writing that the majority of FAs display. So if I were in a particularly bitchy mood, I might oppose the promotion of an article I've contributed to on the grounds that the writing would have to be worsened to bring the article down to FA status. User:Angr 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from. Once an article reaches FA status, it often gets protected extensively. To be honest, I've been guilty of that myself, though once an article reaches FA, there's sometimes not a lot of really obvious improvements that can be made (which isn't to say that there aren't sensible changes that can be implemented; Final Fantasy X's quality improved drastically a couple of months after it became a featured article, just before its stint on the front page; this was due to those changes mentioned in the link and a few others I don't believe were brought up there). Though I acknowledge it could be argued that it's not so much that an article can't be improved as it is that its regular editors are overlooking something, which often happens too.


 * Some FACs do have inadequate prose at times, but the FAC process usually cleans it up through the advice of dedicated copyeditors. Personally, I strongly encourage trying to get articles to the status of FA. Not only does it guarantee the article better exposure and recognize it for its [presumably high] quality, but the nomination process more often than not results in an analysis that thoroughly ensures it deserves FA status if it gets there. Perhaps your bad experiences with editing have soured you to the prospect, but I have always found it to be a beneficial and rewarding process, both for the article I was working on and myself. Ryu Kaze 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not just talking about poor writing in FACs, I'm talking about poor writing in FAs that are on the front page -- these are articles that have already gone through the FAC process, and whose editors have known for a week or two that the article is about to be on the front page, and still the writing is crap. And on top of everything else, I think it would just be arrogant of me to nominate my own work to be declared "Wikipedia's best". User:Angr 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I followed your meaning. I was just commenting that FAC more often than not catches prose issues before an article can become a featured article.


 * As far as the humility issue, if those are your feelings on the matter, I guess you should do what's best for you. Personally, if I feel like my work's good enough, I'm going to make every attempt to get it recognized as being among the best articles on Wikipedia. I know it won't be perfect, and theoretically can never be finished, but I count on contributors from Peer Review and FAC to help ensure that its quality is enhanced to the point that it meets FA criteria. To each their own. Ryu Kaze 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "FAC more often than not catches prose issues before an article can become a featured article." There's a depressing thought, considering how much rancid prose there is in the front-page FA every day. User:Angr 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Torlakian
discussion moved to Talk:Torlakian

Anglo-Celtic Isles
Angr, the discussion is still in progress on this issue. Please do not jump the gun! MelForbes 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AFDs are supposed to run for 5 days. This one had run for 10. At some point the discussion has to be ended. User:Angr 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg
Whoops, you're absolutely right... no point in having it deleted before the FP nomination has been completed. I'll change the tag at least until the nomination is closed. Thanks for pointing it out to me. -- Moondigger 18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interstate Image Names
Okay, done. Why are the names being switched..? I-35, I-30 etc. are a little less official, though I guess they take up less space. Can't image names be made into a redirect for another image anyway? drumguy 8800  -  speak  02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why they're being changed I don't know. I was just going through the category of duplicates for deletion at Commons and found a whole slew of images named "Interstate ##.svg" that are to be deleted and replaced by images named "I-##.svg". User:Angr 04:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakization again
How do you think the article looks now? &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only marginally better. There's still no discussion authored by Wikipedia editors; just a long quote from an external source, followed by unsourced refutation. I'm still not ready to switch my vote to "keep". User:Angr 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think Juro won't allow to write this article. Every Hungarian editor will give up work under these circumstances. The Slovakization article is becoming a second article about Magyarization with only the grievances of Slovaks before 1918 and the gloriousity of Czechoslovakian minority policy. It would be better to delete the whole thing. Zello 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I don't have a position on it either way. I myself am still supporting deletion at the AFD, because it still isn't sourced well enough for me, but I do think it ought to have the full 5 days chance to redeem itself. That's my only reason for reverting the deletions. User:Angr 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I thought it matters something the content of the article. Zello 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey again. We're still waiting on input about the additional changes made for the images over on the Final Fantasy VII FAC. It's been more than five days since your last comment and you've remained consistently active since then. Are you deciding not to comment for some reason? Ryu Kaze 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything more to say than what I've already said. User:Angr 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But I've addressed everything you brought up. The only thing you said last time was that you don't understand how the game has a distinctive art style or why representations of certain aspects of the game are important enough to be portrayed. I've expanded the fair-use rationale for each to explain all that. Ryu Kaze 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all I said. I said "I'm still not convinced that most of these images are showing important aspects of the game in a way a text description would be unable to, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that" (emphasis added). I'm not saying the article violates fair-use policy, but I still don't see why a text description isn't sufficient. For comparison, I recently read Fahrenheit (video game), because it's a game my husband is particularly fond of; the only image in that article is the box cover and still I didn't feel anything was missing from that article. User:Angr 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not exactly a comparable item. Fahrenheit is not nearly as well known, nor as old (it isn't even a year old), nor nearly so relevant to the history of gaming. It's not what you'd call a cornerstone in the industry, unlike VII. Really, VII ' s effects are being realized even more now than they already were. They've not even finished the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII project that began a couple of years ago. This title really has to be approached differently from Fahrenheit. They're in completely different classes.


 * Where this relates to how a text description wouldn't be able to explain certain things is that it wouldn't be able to describe the appearances of the game's [very] notable characters (not without a lot of side-tracking anyway). They're icons of the RPG genre in and of themselves, really. It's arguable that battles could be described in text or that Midgar is already described well enough (personally, though, I don't think the prose does this one justice), but the field map representation is needed, I think. I say this because this is the first console RPG to have that kind of field map system. Describing how navigation is performed in this game is really not all that different from describing it for a 2D game, but it's still a different breed of beast because this was the first to do this in 3D.


 * As for the image of Aeris and Sephiroth, while the text conveys the idea well enough (Sephiroth stabs Aerith), we don't have an image of Sephiroth anywhere else, and he's the main villain (and one of the most popular video game characters). Not only does this image allow him to be represented, but it's also being used to depict what is the most notable in-game event in gaming history. I can understand if you're not convinced with the battle image (though I think depicting battles is important because of how important it is to the game's progression) or the image of Midgar, but with the others, consider them in light of what I've mentioned, even if you don't change your mind. Ryu Kaze 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know my standards for inclusion of fair-use images are much higher than most people's. To me, it's already a compromise to say fair-use images are acceptable only if the article would be incomprehensible without them. I do think our fair-use policy is far too lenient, and that your article does not violate that very lenient policy. But if a comparison with Fahrenheit is inapt, how about a comparison with de:Final Fantasy (Spiel)? German Wikipedia has just one article dedicated to the entire series, with no pictures at all. I won't pretend their coverage is as comprehensive as yours, but the section on FF7 is perfectly adequate. It discusses the story (but without revealing that Sephiroth kills Aerith), the characters and their abilities, the reasons why it's a Playstation game and not a Nintendo game, and the fact that it's available for Windows too. I don't think a German reader would come away from that article confused because it has no pictures. User:Angr 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that they would necessarily walk away with a thorough understanding of the subject either, though. As you've said, for one thing, the article over there isn't nearly as comprehensive. (I've briefly spoken with one of the German editors before, and they expressed dissatisfaction with the Final Fantasy article over there because of how everything's lumped together and not comprehensive.) While I won't say that a reader would necessarily be confused if there weren't any images, they wouldn't be as well informed either.


 * To be honest with you, despite some initial disagreement with your approach to the matter of fair-use, I've come to respect it considerably because it serves to ensure that we place limits on ourselves and don't give in to the unconscious temptation of adding decorations, which can happen easily without awareness. If anything, it has improved the quality of image use.


 * All that said, though, if you feel that the article is no longer violating the fair-use policy, could you remove the fair-use objection, please? I certainly have found it increasingly sensible (ex: "Why is the image of the characters relevant?" or "How is this art style distinctive?"), and have made every effort to address it as best I could. I hope that's been apparent. Your extensive analysis of the subject has elevated the value of those images which do appear. I think I'm thanking you. But anyway, I would appreciate it if you could explain that in the FAC. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've struck my objection. User:Angr 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Once again, thanks also for your input. By the way, if it's alright to ask, are you male or female? I've been referring to you as male. It occurred to me the other day that it might be a good idea to ask, but I forgot to. I'd like to fix the pronouns I've been using in reference to you thus far if they're inaccurate. Ryu Kaze 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh-heh. Check my userboxes, especially if you're confused by my reference above to having a husband. User:Angr 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, good to know for sure I was using the right ones. I'd have felt kind of foolish otherwise. I didn't even think to check the userboxes. Well, keep at holding us to a high quality of image use. I really think that will improve Wikipedia. We did slack off too much there for a good long while. Ryu Kaze 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

re:Question about Image:MaskedIcon.jpg
done. Mike McGregor (Can) 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Welsh language
I'm not with you. Is referencing the use of Welsh in military communications not referencing the use of Welsh? Vashti 07:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a sourced statement that messages were communicated in Welsh in the Balkan war, but not one that Welsh has been used in the same as Navajo was (a coded message that, once decoded, was still in a language the enemy was unlikely to understand). At least, that's what it sounds like; since I don't have access to the Independent article referenced, I don't know whether or not it says the messages were in coded Welsh. User:Angr 07:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the Wiki claim isn't that Welsh was used in the *same* manner as Navajo; it's that it was used in a *similar* manner. The relevant text from the reference is "When tension in Bosnia was close to breaking point, the Royal Welch Fusiliers communicated in Welsh over the radio, thwarting eavesdroppers from the warring factions.".  The *purpose* is the same; the *technique* is not, which is why the Navajo and Welsh can be said to have used their languages in ways that are similar, but not the same. Vashti 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've rearranged the section to keep the similar facts together. Before it looked like we were making three claims: (1) Welsh has been used in a similar way as Navajo (unsourced); (2) Welsh was spoken in the Falkland War between British and Argentine soldiers (unsourced); (3) Welsh was spoken in Bosnia (sourced). But in fact we were making only two claims. User:Angr 07:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it looks a lot better now. Thank you. :) Vashti 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Angr, I've replied to your question about the map of Welsh speakers at Commons:Image talk:Siaradwyr y Gymraeg ym Mhrif Ardaloedd Cymru.png. (Yours is the second question asking for much the same information, though I thought it would be useful to move the answers to someplace central!) Rho gwybod i mi os nad atebais i dy gwestiynnau'n gyflawn. (Pardon if I gnarled that sentence, it's been so long since I've written in Welsh!) QuartierLatin1968 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Map
 * It's been a long time since I've read Welsh, too! Does that say "Let me know if I didn't answer your questions completely?" User:Angr 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I was going for. :-) QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi Angr,

Could you please temporarily restore Template:Bullshit so I can move the contents to my userspace? (serious question) Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch, I just wanted to see it to laugh again. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft photos.
Yes I admit it, there are a large number of photos which I uploaded thinking they were free, but on closer inspection, and possibly because of legislative changes, probably aren't.(Full list here). There was some discussion back in February and others thought these might prove to be works of the UK government and hence free, but I thought it was unlikely and I was certainly in no position to prove it. My feeling is that the safest procedure is if I go through the en wikipedia articles removing references to these images and then flag them all for deletion. What think you?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I came across them because of their copies at Commons, which I am in the process of deleting. User:Angr 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Resources
Hi Angr. I saw that you have a degree in linguistics, and that you are a veteran of sorts around the linguistic articles here, so perhaps you can aid me. Do you know any reliable linguistic resources on the internet which can help me cite a lot of unreferenced facts in IPA (such as "All consonants in Indo European languages are Pulmonic")? I've been using google books in order to find books like this, but they only show a few pages of each book. Is there a reliable internet site which indexes linguistic facts/IPA facts? Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, probably not. The linguistics community just isn't that Internet-friendly yet. I'm afraid you'll have to go down to the library and look at some dead trees! ;-) User:Angr 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. I have a hard time finding things in the 400s in libraries, and my access to a nice university one is hindered by the fact that I'm not at a university right now :-S Can you reccomend any books or periodicals? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For help improving the article on the IPA, just about anything written by Peter Ladefoged will be good.


 * OK. Thank you very much. Oh, and by the way, thanks for throwing in your two cents in the "Worldwide view" dispute. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

English plural
Given your magnificent addition to the list of three-word-or-more compounds, I feel you are the right person to turn to—I beg the favor of your examining my work on English plural and adjusting as you see fit. I am an amateur; you, I trust, can bring something more than love and devotion to the matter. (PS: The article used to describe blues only as a mass noun; as I've explicated in the newly created English plural subsection, a "blues" is also an individual song in the style, of which there can be one--like "St. Louis Blues"--or many.) (PPS: If you check out the article's History page, you will note my near-innumerable revisions. Forgive me—I'm a copyeditor by both habit and profession.) Best, Dan —DCGeist 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

smells like OR
The whole section smells like OR to me. I say get rid of it. [in the English Language discussion tab]
 * Can you tell me what does "OR" mean?
 * Original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted proposal to move from Gaelic names to English
See []. In my opinion it's unwarranted. I'm not sure what you may think. But it's there for discussion. Evertype 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Spinster678
Hi Angr. I know you listed this user's images on WP:PUI, and I just wanted to let you know that he's re-uploaded them again with, which they obviously aren't. However, that's not the main issue. He contines to revert the Nawab Akbar Bugti to a much earlier version, thus erasing everyone else's contributions. Additionally, the version that he keeps reverting to is before he died, and it seems that I'm the only one that notices this. I've tried to contact this user repeatedly but to no avail. When he reverts again, can you please do something about it? Meanwhile, another user, Neville123 also uploaded the same images with false copyright tags. At this point I'm not sure what to do. Your help would be appreciated, thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The latest update: Neville has now reverted again to Spinster's version. I don't mean to be paranoid, but I think he might be a sockpuppet or something. :( &mdash; Khoikhoi 08:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)