User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 46

Articles do not belong in a Category and its Subcategory
Then why don't you just add these articles to to Category:Christianity also?


 * Anti-Christian prejudice
 * Christian apologetics
 * Christian art
 * Liturgical year
 * Christian denominations
 * Christian education
 * Christian liturgy
 * Christian media
 * Christian missions
 * Christian popular culture
 * Glossary of Christian terms
 * Christian theology
 * Christianity and other religions
 * Christians
 * Eastern Christianity

And you should also add these categories the History of Christianity article also?


 * Category:Religion
 * Category:History of religion
 * Category:History
 * Category:Abrahamic religions
 * Category:Cultural history
 * Category:World history
 * Category:Fields of history
 * Category:Study of religion
 * Category:Monotheism

The claim that articles belong in a Category and its Subcategory if the article leads a very general category is stupid. If anything, a large category like Category:Christianity needs to have articles removed-- not added. -- Carlaude (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your examples are all upside down. Articles belong in categories at their same level of specificness or one level more general; they don't belong in categories more specific than the topic of the article itself. The article Religion is the lead article of Category:Religion so it belongs in all the categories that Category:Religion is also in. But Category:Religion is not a subcategory of Category:Christian history (at least, it shouldn't be), so the article doesn't belong in that category. But Category:Christian history is a subcategory of Category:Christianity, so the article History of Christianity, as the lead article of that category, also belongs in Category:Christianity. More specific articles in Category:Christian history that are not its lead article, of course do not belong in Category:Christianity. —Angr 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wanting to put the History of Christianity in the Category:Christianity because History of Christianity is the lead article in a Subcategory of Category:Christianity-- right?


 * Then you would also put the History of Christianity in the Category:History of religion because History of Christianity is the lead article in a Subcategory of Category:History of religion.


 * Likewise you would also put the Christian missions in the Category:Christianity because Christian missions is the lead article in a Subcategory of Category:Christianity.-- Carlaude (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you changed your examples from your initial edit, so they're no longer upside down as they were here. Yes, History of Christianity should also be in Category:History of religion, and in fact it is; and either Mission (Christian) should be in Category:Christianity, or Category:Christian missions shouldn't be a direct subcategory of Category:Christianity if there's an intermediate subcategory it could go into instead. —Angr 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your plan would change to whole category tree.
 * Instead of filling Category:Christianity with all those pages when it clearly says at the top "Due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages"-- go find a policy on Wikipedia to back up your opinion on Categorization. -- Carlaude (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think History of Christianity definitely counts as directly related page. Someone browsing Category:Christianity is going to expect to find at least a few articles on very broad topics relating to Christianity, and its history is one of those. As for backing up my opinion, even if WP:SUBCAT didn't already agree with me, WP:UCS would be sufficient. —Angr 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

XXX of Christianity

 * You cannot possibly think that "XXX of Christianity" really counts as directly related page. The label says that it is such a broad category that nothing goes on the top level-- except possibly for a page that is totally about "Christianity"-- because in that case the page cannot go anywhere in the category tree except the top level-- but of course there may not even be any such article that is totally about "Christianity."
 * If it meant instead "all lead articles and all lead articles of the subcategories" they would never label it as they have because these categories always have many subcategories!-- Carlaude (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're making absolutely no sense. You cannot possibly think that "XXX of Christianity" counts as anything other than a directly related page. The label does not say nothing goes on the top level except possibly for a page that is totally about Christianity (and incidentally, History of Christianity is totally about Christianity); it says "possibly a limited number of directly related pages". There are probably about a dozen or two articles that are directly related to Christianity in a way broad enough that they should be in the top-level category. Read WP:SUBCAT and #User benefit. "If... the topic article and the similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category." If you remove all the articles from Category:Christianity you have rendered it useless; it may as well be deleted under WP:CSD. —Angr 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You make no sense. History of Christianity is not totally about Christianity because it is about a part of Christianity; it is only about the history. For example the Christianity article is about 10-15% on its history.
 * Anything that is "XXX of Christianity" is always about a part of Christianity. That is the purpose of the subcategories.
 * I do not even know what you are tring to say in "If you remove all the articles from Category:Christianity you have rendered it useless"-- do you think users are all handycapped and thus blind to subcategories?
 * I am glad you found the policy that you misunderstand to use here so that we can discuss it in context. The normal policy is at the very top of the page you cite (and elsewhere) that "...articles belonging to such a subcategory should not be placed in the parent category also". But sometimes we do will do this-- not always, or even normally. It then gives a detailed example of when may be best to do this in cases of incomplete sets of subcategories using the example of actors. We may do this in incomplete sets of subcategories-- but it does not indicate me must always do so. You would never do so in complete sets of subcategories (if say, all the actors are subcategorized by county of origin, then you would not also put actor the articles on the top level too.)
 * If you have Category:Twelve apostles you want St. Peter at the top level, even thou he has his own subcategory, because it is a very incomplete subcategories. If each of the Twelve had a subcategory you would not put the article at the top level because it would then be complete subcategories. Same as the George W. Bush example.
 * But Category:Christianity is not like the Category:Twelve apostles or such. It has everything in subcategories, everything but three pages that cannot really go anywhere else. -- Carlaude (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying an article is entirely about a subject is not the same as saying the article is about the entirety of a subject. History of Christianity is entirely about Christianity; that doesn't mean it covers the entirety of Christianity. I don't think users are blind to subcategories, but I do think they shouldn't be forced to go burrowing around in subcategories when they're trying to find a really broad topic like the history of Christianity. I don't expect Category:Christianity to contain every article vaguely connected with Christianity, but I do expect it to contain broad topics like History of Christianity, Christian theology, Christian denomination, and things like that. It makes navigating the category easier for the user when the most immediately relevant articles are in the category, so if he's looking for a general topic he doesn't have to go digging in increasingly specific embedded subcategories to find it. If I were looking for an article about the history of Christianity in general and went to Category:Christianity to find it, I would be really pissed off that I would first have to go browsing through 33 subcategories to find the right subcategory for it. And I would really wonder why a category concerning the world's largest religion had only one article in it. —Angr 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

XXX of Christianity II

 * Yes-- I realized my mistake after I ended yesterday. Very sorry. I should said-- and I was thinking-- Christianity in its totalility. I meant, or example...
 * You cannot possibly think that "XXX of Christianity" really counts as directly related page. The label says that it is such a broad category that nothing goes on the top level-- except possibly for a page that is about Christianity in its totalality -- because in that case the page cannot go anywhere in the category tree except the top level-- but of course there may not even be any such article that is about Christianity in its totalality.
 * Again sorry. Please read my meaning again.. now that I am saying it more clearly.
 * History of Christianity is not about Christianity in its totalality because it is about a part of Christianity; it is only about the history. For example the Christianity article is about 10-15% on its history.
 * Anything that is "XXX of Christianity" is always about a part of Christianity. That is the purpose of the subcategories.
 * I do not even know what you are trying to say in "If you remove all the articles from Category:Christianity you have rendered it useless"-- do you think users are all handycapped and thus blind to subcategories? Do you think Category:People by continent, Category:Civilizations, and Category:Restaurants by type are "useless" subcategories?
 * I am glad you found the policy that you misunderstand to use here so that we can discuss it in context. The normal policy is at the very top of the page you cite (and elsewhere) that "...articles belonging to such a subcategory should not be placed in the parent category also". But sometimes we do will do this-- not always, or even normally. It then gives a detailed example of when may be best to do this in cases of incomplete sets of subcategories using the example of actors. We may do this in incomplete sets of subcategories-- but it does not indicate me must always do so. You would never do so in complete sets of subcategories (if say, all the actors are subcategorized by county of origin, then you would not also put actor the articles on the top level too.)
 * If you have Category:Twelve apostles you want St. Peter at the top level, even thou he has his own subcategory, because it is a very incomplete subcategories. If each of the Twelve had a subcategory you would not put the article at the top level because it would then be complete subcategories. Same as the George W. Bush example.
 * But Category:Christianity is not like the Category:Twelve apostles or such. It has everything in subcategories, everything but three pages that cannot really go anywhere else.
 * I know a lot of this did not change but it is critical and I did not get any comment on it from you above. Thak you.-- Carlaude (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded above in post of 14:08 today. —Angr 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that that post was a respone to the way Wikipedia policy is-- then it seems to me that you are basicly saying, "I do not care about Wikipedia policy" but that you want to "categorization your own way".
 * That said-- and the silliness of claiming a user might not know to look in the the Category:Christian history subcategory for the Christian history before the other 32 subcategories-- maybe your desire to have links to important articles from the Category:Christianity page could be met by you just putting the template at the foot. -- Carlaude (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I don't care about Wikipedia policy. I'm saying that WP:SUBCAT (which isn't policy anyway, but that's beside the point) agrees with me that there is no reason to remove the topic article of a category from the categories one level higher up, and that nothing in WP:CAT or WP:SUBCAT says there are categories that should have no articles at all or only one article in them. You are the one who is misunderstanding both the letter and the spirit of WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT. As for Christianityfooter, it belongs in articles, not categories. Articles (in the plural!) belong in categories, even high-level broad ones like Category:Christianity. History of Christianity's subcat might be easy to find at Category:Christianity, but others aren't. What if I'm looking for a page on Christian doctrine? I go to Category:Christianity and look first in the Articles section. Since there's only one article in the entire category, I first curse whoever took all the articles out, and then go look in the subcategories. Nothing useful under D, so I start again at the beginning of the alphabet. Ah, here we go: Category:Christian belief and doctrine. A minute and a half later (because Wikipedia's servers are slow again as usual) the page opens and I look inside, and lo and behold there's no article about Christian doctrine anywhere there. So I go back to Category:Christianity and try again. Category:Christian behaviour and experience? Seems unlikely, but I'll look inside to be on the safe side. Nope. Try again. Category:Christian theology? That's probably it. So yeah, thanks to the subcategories I eventually find it, but it took 5 or 6 minutes. Whereas if the top-level category contained some useful articles in addition to the subcategories, I would have instantly seen that there's no article Christian doctrine (it being a redirect) and would have scanned the article names for a plausible alternative instead of having to digging through subcategories to find one. And I would have found what I was looking for in 10 seconds instead of 6 minutes. —Angr 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Belgian surname: Nagant
Howdy, Angr, and thanks for offering your take on my query. It appears we're on the same page re: the French styling. I don't have enough background on the family to know if they've a Walloon vs. Flemish background and whether that would make a difference. Another option would be to check how the surname (or the weapon's name) is transliterated into Cyrillic, if my comperes there might be trusted? Meanwhile, that's an interesting pickup about Saint-Saëns I hadn't known, though evidently reflected as you say in the Hebrew page name (though I would quibble about the [s] rather than [z] equivalent there). You'll note, by the way, how his first name in Hebrew would back-transcribe as [kaMEE]] (sorry, no IPA today ;-), typical of French-Hebrew transcription. Keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The [s] is right according to the IPA in our article, and I don't know how else [kamij] would be transliterated into Hebrew. BTW, have you seen he:מוסין נגאן? That's the Hebrew transliteration of the Russian transliteration of the French. —Angr 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Election
Here's the only problem I have with creating a new map for the voting shifts in the 2008 election -- I don't have the capability to make a map like that since my PhotoPlus/MS Paint programs are not that sophisticated. I'd make one myself if I could since it'd be easier, but it doesn't look like I could. Since I think that route would be easier, do you know anyone who is good at making those kinds of maps who could lend a hand? It'd be a big help since it's a pretty good map and one which would be a pity to get rid off. -- Frightwolf (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd make a request at Graphic Lab/Map workshop. —Angr 14:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Parable
Angr, I read your Vegan Potluck Parable a long, long time ago. I thought it seemed "parablistic", but at the time, I had no concept of the whole "fair use" and "free content" policies. Like probably 90% of Wikipedia's editors, I'm just not involved in these areas, as I don't provide images to the project.

Anyway, I was doing a major cleanup on an article recently (Dikir barat; I doubt very much you've heard of it—I know I hadn't before I found it on the cleanup list), and I decided that this article really, really needed a picture or two. The net upshot is that I started learning about images, I went to the Wikimedia Commons and looked, and, unsurprisingly, I found nothing I could use. So then I really started researching and learning and that is how I learned how incredibly frustrating it can be to come across perfect images that you can't use. I learned about the Flickr Commons, which I thought was the answer, because there were some images that at first I thought were free use, but it turned out that I couldn't use them because of the commercial use restrictions.

So why am I telling you all this? Well, first of all, your parable stuck in the back of my head as I was doing this search, and although I only comprehended it in a limited fashion, it was because of your parable I was aware that this would not be as easy as I would surely otherwise have thought. Without your parable, I would've certainly quickly uploaded a few choice images, slapped them into the article, and then I suppose they would have been removed shortly thereafter, to my great embarassment. (As it happens, I have usually learned about Wikipedia policies by violating them and then getting my head snipped off.) So you saved me from embarassing myself. And now it comes to this: Now that I understand what you were saying, do I agree with you? Absolutely. Though it would be easier the other way, you are right, the loopholes in the policy appear to be too hypocritical to stomach. Being the creature of pure id that I am, I just thought I'd share this with you. And of course, as a creature of id, I may still be talking before I know what I'm talking about. Suffice it to say that I appreciate the contribution that you've made to my Wikiducation. Un sch  ool  05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm here, I should take advantage of your expertise. If you have time, take a look at this page.  Is there anything there I could safely use in a Wikipedia article?  Un  sch  ool  06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to have been of help! The page you linked to unfortunately doesn't give the pictures licenses, so you have to look at them one by one. If it says "All rights reserved" or if it uses a CC license that's either "NC" or "ND", you can't use it. You can only use Flickr images that are tagged "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA". Finding such images on Flickr is easier if you go to the Advanced Search page and check the boxes at the bottom that say "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", "Find content to use commercially", and "Find content to use commercially". With all three boxes checked, the search will find only images that are free to upload. (However, sometimes Flickr users add one of these tags to images they don't have copyright control over. I've seen times when someone has uploaded a promotional photo of a celebrity to Flickr and tagged it CC-BY-SA, but of course it wasn't. If that happens, and you upload that picture here, then the picture will get deleted once it gets discovered, but it doesn't reflect badly on you, because you acted in good faith.) My other piece of advice is to open an account on Commons if you don't already have one, and upload the images there. —Angr 07:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Windows 7 Action Center.png
Just to let you know, I've referred this image to WP:DRV for formal review of your deletion of more readable versions of the image. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Literature and evolution
Oops. Good point! garik (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And lo and behold! As I said: oops. garik (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

English language
Hi, you removed a "fact" tag stating that the statement was already sourced, but you didn't point to the source. Can you help me by pointing to the source of this statement please? --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is at the end of the sentence. —Angr 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That source does not back-up the statement. Or perhaps I'm interpreting it differently.  Can you point me to where that source states that English was a native tongue of the British Isles please?  As you probably know, Ireland would have had Irish as a native tongue, so I don't think this sentence is correct...  --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well common knowledge that English was a native language in the British Isles; that doesn't mean it was exceptionlessly everyone's native language in the British Isles. (After all, countries don't have native languages, people do.) And in the context of spreading English around the globe, we can hardly pretend that the Irish didn't play a role: the Irish diaspora was truly massive, but the language the emigrants took with them to their new locations was English. With the possible exception of Newfoundland Irish (the article is too badly sourced to be sure), Irish itself barely ever gained a toehold in any of the places the Irish emigrated to. —Angr 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll change the article so that it is sourced and clearer, because anyone reading the article now wouldn't pick up on the subtleties of a native language. It reads right now as if it was the only native language.  --HighKing (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "native tongue" bit as it's not sourced. I don't think it's detracted from the article in any way either.  See what you think.  --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese people
I've already asked Kwamikagami but he hasn't responded yet. Currently, Pietru is trying to introduce an anti-Arabic language and anti-Libyan relations POV to the article. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, but he deleted it and kept personally attacking me. I've tried to talk by edit summary, but he won't listen, and when I finally got him to talk on the talk page of the article, he still carries on reverting, attacking me, and not responding to any of the points I make. Please please do something. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An appropriate response to these scurrilous accusations has been left on User:Kwamikagami's talkpage. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, some help with the anon would be appreciated, it seems to be getting hysterical. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. You protected the page on the one last edited by Pietru - was this on purpose? 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even look to see whose version I protected on. See The Wrong Version. —Angr 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you could bring your thoughts to the talk page - I'm getting nowhere with Pietru. Cheers 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a check needs to happen with this anon, if it would do any good. It is following a pattern taken by various other destructive editors to these articles. However I have attempted to address its concerns, as possible. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

bhuH-
Rix reconstructs the full grade *bhweh2- mostly because of the Latin subjunctive fuā- and the Italic imperfect suffix *-βā-. He doesn't elaborate on the *h2, but the ā's in the mentioned forms seem to imply the a-colouring laryngeal. He explains the e-grade of the thematic present *bheuh2-e- as a secondary form to avoid a laryngeal hiatus (*eh2e) and likens it to Greek βέομαι < *gweih3-e- from the root *gwyeh3-. If this doesn't sound convincing to you, feel free to change it back. Regards --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll doublecheck what Jasanoff has to say about it, but I think he says the ā of fuā- is part of the suffix, not the root. It seems logical, since the subjunctive stem of, say, dico is dicā- < root dic- + suffix ā, that the subjunctive stem fuā- is root fu- (< bhuH-) + suffix ā. As for the imperfect suffix, God knows what it is. —Angr 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this become **fūā-? Anyway, I agree that Rix's view is not really convincing. Perhaps the safest thing would be changing it back to *H. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because (1) intervocalic laryngeals don't lengthen preceding vowels (they have to be in the syllable coda for compensatory lengthening to work), and (2) even if they did, Latin usually shortens vowels in hiatus. I didn't check Jasanoff yet, but Sihler says explicitly that fuā- has the Italo-Celtic subjunctive suffix ā. —Angr 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs
I'd like more input on Talk:Chris Brown (entertainer), Talk:Rihanna, and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, BLPs aren't really my specialty, but I'll take a look. —Angr 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese people - again
Hello again, I notice that after protecting the page, you didn't come to the talk page to help discuss the problem. I hope you will choose to do so. 89.243.216.119 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the people with the disagreement who need to do the talking. I don't know anything about the subject and so have nothing to contribute to the discussion. —Angr 10:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you're the admin who blocked Maltese people; the historical accounts section contains various typographical errors and actually cuts off mid-sentence. I would like to make the necessary edits, if the IP is still interested in offering suggestions, perhaps it can start by discussing them on the talk page. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s&#39;évanouissent. (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To request correction of typos and the like, please use editprotected. —Angr 13:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not only typos, it's also re-introducing information that got excluded (where it "cuts off mid-sentence"). I was going to request the unprotect but saw that it's common practice to speak with the relevant admin first. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s&#39;évanouissent. (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, it's best to use editprotected if you want to make edits unrelated to the topic of the edit war. —Angr 17:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there. The situation on Maltese people got odd again and the IP involved has been identified as User:Iamandrewrice ( Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Other than semi-protect, is anything to be done?? Pietru (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Did you read what was written there? They said my IP didn't match those used by that user. When are you going to stop trolling Pietru? You were proved wrong on the article by sheer consensus. Do your dignity a favour, accept it, and move on. 78.147.7.85 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, as User:Knepflerle pointed out, you are not in the clear regarding your IP, far from it! Secondly, the fact you tried to accuse me of being this freak User:Iamandrewrice (and have since been uncovered as such) is hilarious (mostly pathetic, but still kinda funneh). Finally, you achieved no such consensus and the entire section you 'contributed' to has been utterly purged. That is all, I am done with you. Pietru (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some additional information regarding the IP's connection to User:Iamandrewrice and it's trolling MO: it is from the same range as a third of known accounts used by this editor, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. The editor's bizarre behaviour is identical, as are the articles edited. User:Knepflerle offered this salient suggestion on a possible course of action: (Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used) - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Pietru (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you two please not carry on this discussion on my talk page? I'm tired of getting the orange "You have new messages" bar just to see that it's just the two of you sniping at each other. —Angr 06:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyperuricemia Page
Curious, you made an edit on that page only minutes after I saved changes. Are you real person or a bot? Also, the change you made produced no visible change in the displayed page. Apparently an error caused by me pushing the editor's "ref" toolbar button somehow results in the insertion of line break in the code and it was this line break that you removed. but by displaying both versions I see that this mysterious line break does not affect the displayed page. Both versions look identical. So you got me now in multiple suspence. Spookmaster (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a real boy; I saw the line break when I looked at the diff of your edit. Sometimes line breaks inside &lt;ref&gt; tags break them, so I removed it to be on the safe side. —Angr 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your userpage
Or alternatively you could have thanked me for reverting what I reasonably assumed to be vandalism on your userpage, considering you are not logged in. Oh and another thing, dont threaten me with being reported for "3RR" on your userpage, it was good faith reverts to what I thought to be vandalism. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺

However, if the IP was not you I apologise for the above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 12:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me. I don't even know what you're talking about. I'd better go check my user page history now! —Angr 13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new!
Hey Angr. I'm a relatively new Wiki user and I'm trying to get my feet wet without drowning. I'm not really sure how to do so without simply visiting and discussing/editing random pages. Do you have any suggestions as to ways that I can lend my talents to Wiki? I've been doing as much reading on the wiki rules/regulations and I think I'm ready to jump in. I get the feeling that there's a place that lists new articles/edits and I thought that maybe that would be a good place for me to start. Any help or guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Btw, I just randomly searched for an admins. You seemed nice and helpful so I stopped here. :-) Thanks for your time.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, welcome to Wikipedia! Recent edits can be found at Special:RecentChanges; there are people who patrol them for vandalism (see WP:RCP). Recently created articles can be found at Special:NewPages; there are people who patrol them for vandalism too (see WP:NPP). If you're interested in adding content, you could join a WikiProject reflecting your interests; to judge by your user page, I'd say you might join WP:WikiProject Engineering and WP:WikiProject Mathematics and see what work needs to be done in those areas. Most importantly, be bold - don't be afraid to edit articles, though if you get reverted when you do, don't get mad - go to the talk page and discuss it (see WP:BRD). —Angr 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the direction! That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jomeara421/Truman Michelson
Hi, I'm curious where you found this item on my user page. I thought I'd deleted it some time ago, and can't locate it now. Not a big deal, just curious. Jomeara421 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking through Category:American linguists and saw there was a user subpage in it. —Angr 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pancake Day
Pancake Day is a redirect to Shrove Tuesday so it really should be mentioned in the lead, which in any case is supposed to summarise the whole article, a large proportion of which is taken up with discussion of pancake related traditions. David Underdown (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's a redirect is no reason to mention a childish, colloquial, and little-known name in the lead, especially when it's already sufficiently discussed lower down in the text. Turkey Day redirects to Thanksgiving, too, but Thanksgiving doesn't mention "Turkey Day" in the lead. —Angr 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a widely known name in the UK, with much advertising using that title. David Underdown (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And Turkey Day is widely known in the US and used in advertising, but that still doesn't mean it warrants a place alongside the official name as if it were somehow an alternate name. —Angr 11:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One always has to take Google results with a pich of salt, but "Shrove Tuesday" returns ~ 242,000, whilst "Pancake Day" gives ~304,000. This perhaps should be taken forward on the talk page rather than here, but pancake day has been bolded in the lead for quite a long time, so it's really you who needs to establish consensus for its removal, not that a consensus is needed for its retention.  Many people have no idea of the connotations of Shrove Tuesday, and why pancakes are eaten, but they'll know what Pancake Day is right away, unlike Thanksgiving where virtually everyone in the US will have been taught the Thanksgiving Day story.  David Underdown (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was added just three minutes before I removed it. —Angr 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look back a few days, befor someone did a bit of a tidy up. It's been there forever.  David Underdown (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This I can live with, where it's bolded in the lead, and cited separately, but relatively far away from the actual title of the article. —Angr 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hohen vs. Hoher (Meißner)
or, "Whatever would I do without you?" :-) If it isn't evident by now, I'm doing a systematic review of our Archives' key words for place names and their alternative versions, and some have apparently been listed in an inflected form by erstwhile coworkers who (a) don't know the language in question and/or (b) don't work with the resources I have at my veritable fingertips. Know that I'm one of (a) and you are (virtually) part of (b) - and greatly appreciated as such. -- a sheynem dank, Deborahjay (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a sheynem you're welcome! ;-) —Angr 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical Gaelic.
Aren't Classical Gaelic and Classical Irish the same thing?

The article Classical Gaelic tells us it is the literary form of Scottish Gaelic used in Scotland from the 13th to the 18th century.

The article History of the Irish language a redirect from Classical Irish, informs us it is also called Classical Irish [...] used as a literary language in Ireland from the 13th to the 17th century and in Scotland (where it is known as Classical Gaelic) from the 13th to the 18th century.

The article Scottish Gaelic informs us that Classical Gaelic was used as a literary language in Ireland until the 17th century and in Scotland until the 18th century.

Is there any particular reason that the article Classical Gaelic can't directly mention that it is also also known as Classical Irish? After all, that, or History of the Irish language, is where one must go to find more information pertaining to it, whatever it is called.

84.135.204.251 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Until about a year ago, the article was called Early Modern Irish, which is the scholarly name for the Goidelic language of Scotland and Ireland from the 13th century to about the 17th century (in Ireland) or 18th century (in Scotland). Then a group of Scottish editors decided they wanted the name of the article changed to Classical Gaelic, a name used primarily in Scotland and only for the language as used in Scotland. Once that happened, the information on EMI had to be moved elsewhere, so I put it in History of the Irish language. I agree that Classical Gaelic and Classical Irish are for all intents and purposes the same language, but an article about both can't be called Classical Gaelic as that name excludes Irish. (The name Early Modern Irish, on the other hand, does not exclude the language of Scotland, although some Scots like to imagine it does.) —Angr 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)