User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 51

Spieprzaj dziadu! deleted
Hello, I don't know if I should be writing to you but I've just noticed that the page I created Spieprzaj dziadu! has been deleted and a note was not even left on my talk page to notify me of the AFD debate. Is there a chance of postponing the decision so I can have my say on the subject? After all, the page was considered good enough for a DYK when it was created. I'm seriously disappointed by the way this has been handled... not even telling the creator of the page that there is an AFD on it is quite disrespectful (though I realise it was not you who instigated it). Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very rare that the editor who starts an article is notified on his talk page of an AFD discussion. It's usually taken for granted that he would keep the article on his watchlist and so would see the AFD tag being put on. It was, after all, discussed for a week before being deleted. +Angr 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says here under Notifying substantial contributors to the article; "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". That would seem to be quite clear and not an indication of 'rarity'. And this course of action has a reason: as it happens, I didn't notice the AFD tag appear, so now all my hard work has been got rid of. For the record, three of the voters for 'delete' had talked about their opinions together before the vote, so an opposing group was there ready, making it seem like a lot of 'random' editors were against the article. They weren't. My involvement in the AFD could have countered their arguments I feel. Malick78 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Derrybeg storm
You ask "is anyone going to remember this in 5 years?". Not if you can help it! But the Met Service reference states that this was likely a 1 in 100 year event; people also readily recalled the last such flood in 1880, slightly more than 5 years ago. Has this happened in, say, Dublin it would hardly merit a mention in the article - but in the case of small villages events such as these are recalled for generations. Context is everything. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Angr. I was recently asked what I thought about the close of Articles for deletion/List of terms for gay in different languages, and after reading through the AfD discussion, I thought I'd ask you for your input on this. I know that I don't have near the amount of experience at WP that you do, so I was hoping you wouldn't mind adding your thoughts on it. I did see it mentioned that DRV was a possibility, but I'd rather ask here first - there well may be something I'm not aware of. Thanks, and Cheers — Ched : ?  02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, although more people wanted it deleted than kept, AFD isn't a vote but an attempt to reach consensus, and reading through the comments it was clear to me that no consensus was reached. +Angr 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Angr. Happy Wikipedia Birthday. I posted the above article to DRV here . ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

slender nn in Muskerry
Angr, the article Irish phonology shows the last sound in "Éirinn" in Muskerry Irish as /ɲ/. I though that sound was for ny as in Spanish. Shouldn't it be /ŋˈ/? Rather than amend the page, I thought I would run it past you. Djwebb1969 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition of /ɲ/, as of all IPA characters, varies slightly from language to language. In the Irish phonology article and WP:IPA for Irish, that symbol is used for the "slender ng" sound (traditional ŋ'), which is described as palatal in many sources and which by definition means a nasal at the same place of articulation as /c ɟ ç/ (traditional k' g' x'). +Angr 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Class act

 * I'm frankly not sure how to take this "award". "The community" supported WP:STEAM, which is supposed to be humor, over WP:CONSENSUS, which is supposed to be policy. But beating my head against a brick wall was giving me a headache, so I gave up. +Angr 08:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Angr, it was honestly meant as an appreciation of your integrity. It's not meant to be some sort of snide or snarky thing.  You closed an AfD as keep, a DRV was opened, and when you saw that consensus was the opposite of the "keep", you actually deleted the article yourself.  I thought that was cool.  You acted in a purely professional manner, I just wanted to acknowledge your integrity.  Nothing more, nothing less.  We need "good" admins that work for the best of the community, I see you as one of those "good admins" - and I wanted to say so. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't close it as keep, I closed it as no consensus to delete, which is a very different thing. And I still believe there was no consensus to delete. I ultimately deleted it because it was clear that the DRV was going to result in its getting deleted one way or the other, so I decided to short-circuit the drama by just deleting it myself. But I still feel that the deletion was in violation of policy, so I don't feel particularly full of integrity for having done so. +Angr 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion reviews to overturn keeps?
This is about the DRV for "List of words for gay in different languages". I agree with the way you closed the original AFD. There may have been more "votes" for delete, but most of them were along the lines of "me too, IDONTLIKEIT". It was only towards the end of the AFD when people were bringing forth actual arguments about whether or not the page was salveageable. Furthermore, almost all the "delete" votes occured within 24 hours of the nomination, which looks pretty sketchy to me.

But since when do we have deletion reviews when an article gets kept? After all, they're called "deletion reviews" for a reason. When an article gets kept or closed no consensus it's bad form to renominate it for deletion; it should be given some time for people to improve it. Allowing keeps to be overturned is simply a sneaky way around this rule, bringing double jeopardy to the AFD process and discouraging people from improving marginal articles. Sneaky, because there is no notice of the DRV posted on the AFD discussion, and it's over within two days instead of seven. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, DRV has always included cases where the article was kept, not just cases where it was deleted. +Angr 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does DRV ever do other DRVs? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I suppose there's a first time for everything, but at this point I'd say it's unlikely to change the final result. +Angr 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics
Hi! This is Troubled Traveler. I've been looking at the talkpage discussions and would like to suggest some changes. When can we talk? TroubledTraveler (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Help needed!
Hi, I find your name in the list of German-to-English Translators. well, I need your help for Aenne Burda and it's related articles, July 28 is her 100th birthday and I want expand her article for her birthday. I have requested for translation since march but nothing happen. can you please help in expanding her alticle with translating from de.wikipedia (Aenne_Burda), or guid me how I can request for Speedy-Translate! Thank you very much.  ■ MMXX  talk  18:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm afraid I won't have time to help. +Angr 00:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ok.  ■ MMXX  talk  16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Point #3
...many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; where as some other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church....

In a follow up to the RCC → CC move-- and its masive footnote, I proposed the above be added in the name of NPOV/adding a non-RCC POV. The proposal is just sort of "dieing on the vine" without WP:CON either way. If you like it, it may help to express so here. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 18:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

QUESTIONABLE DELETION FROM "ARMAGEDDON" CAUSES QUESTION
User Aeldanila asks, "What was unscientific or over-speculative about the koine Greek (the language of John of Patmos, by the way) breathing symbol ' being possibly lost through copy error resulting in a lost H sound from the Hebrew Har-Magidon possibly causing the translation Ar-magidon, which easily wears to Armageddon?"

This question is not one of expressed opinion, but one I would like to see an answer to at my talk page Angr! Much question DOES attach to how the Hebrew word comes into Greek, and then into KJV English. It was not over-speculative in the least, considering how many generations of copyists (largely in Europe, and largely in Ireland since you seem to care about that subject as well) that it took to preserve the writings known as the Book of Revelation. Ya know, John of Patmos original manuscript IS non-extant, however we definitely know that copyists in monasteries were so accurate that it is even known that his Greek usage is nowhere near as accurate as, say, the Greek-schooled Paul. There is no question that the copyists were THAT accurate, so if concern about bashing the scriptures' accuracy was a basis for the deletion (which was for the very elucidation of the change so that it could be comprehended), then it was an un-justified deletion in the article. However it IS known by relative analysis that copy errors DID occasionally happen, and losing into Carolingian miniscule a single ', which I think is called an "aspiration" is certainly not an unthinkable situation. Be Well!--Aeldanila (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appeared to me to be speculation on your part because there were no cited sources showing that this possibility has been considered by scholars in published, peer-reviewed research. If it has, feel free to restore the information, with sources. However, the loss of the "h" is far more likely to be due to linguistic reasons, such as sound change, than epigraphic reasons, such as someone confusing a rough breathing with a smooth breathing. +Angr 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aeldanila sees and agrees! I do not have published, peer-reviewed research, and my source (though academic) is non-published, so NOR would also apply. Thanks, the restoration will not be made, and the information stays deleted. Take Care and Be Well! --Aeldanila (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Appreciate the cleanup help you've given on the Scott Peterson (comic book writer and artist) page.

Regarding that, I have a question--don't know where is the best place to ask it. On the main Scott Peterson discussion page, I see that there was some discussion (in 2005) about whether to list the convicted murderer as "Scott Peterson (convicted of murder)" instead of simply "Scott Peterson." At the time someone stated (quoting from that page):

"I would say this could be moved back to base. The only other Scott Peterson on the disambig page is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor who doesn't have a Wiki page. No disrespect, but I think it's fair to say that roughly 0% of the people who look up Scott Peterson on Wiki wish to read about the journalist. I'd say this article has every reason to be moved."

I am wondering if this question should be reexamined, since there are now three Scott Petersons on Wikipedia and the murder case is no longer so dominant in the news media. The other two Scott Petersons (the journalist and the comic book writer/editor) are actively publishing new writings and would seem to have as legitimate a claim on the base page as the convicted felon. Should the base page go to the disambig page instead of a single person?

Thanks for your help. I am learning the ropes. Bluedilly (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Even though there are two other Scott Petersons with Wikipedia articles, it's still probably true that the convicted murderer is the one most people will be looking for. After all, Michael Jackson isn't a disambig despite the other people listed at Michael Jackson (disambiguation). +Angr 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on this
Since you seem to be the free use expert, I just wanted to ask which picture you thought would be better for the article Daniel Handler. The picture that is there right now, or this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarongustafson/3379732436/sizes/l/

Both fit the free criteria. The first one's not of a high quality but it's related to what he's most known for (the Lemony Snicket books) and he's looking at the camera. In the second one, it's more high def but he's looking away from the camera. What do you think would be better for the article?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd definitely upload the highest-resolution version of the Flickr image to Commons and put it in commons:Category:Daniel Handler. As you see there are also other images in that category; plausible candidates for use in the article include File:Daniel Handler calling Lemony Snicket 2006-10-28.jpg and File:Daniel Handler in SSF 02-06 2.JPG. If I did use the Flickr image, I would definitely also upload a cropped version that focused more on his face, so that it was better visible at thumbnail size. But as for which image to use, that's an aesthetic decision I don't feel qualified to make. +Angr 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a vandal
If I have made any mistakes, they were no way intended in the slightest. Jacob Richardson (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I believe I had incorrectly edited the template. My mistake. :] Jacob Richardson (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The 4 gospels translated by Peadar Ua Laoghaire
Hi, Angr. I have begun transcribing these at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Na_Cheithre_Soisgéil. I have uploaded 3 chapters of the Gospel according to St Matthew. But heavy proofreading is probably required. I will add to it gradually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks! +Angr 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

203.84.184.134
HI Angr, Could you have a look at the behavior of the editor from this address, they've been removing references and categories and cross-wiki links from a bunch of dance related articles including Folk dance. I think there's grounds for a temporary block. Comhreir (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user had already been blocked for over an hour when you wrote the above. It's probably better to report such things at WP:AIV anyway, since I've only been sporadically on Wikipedia lately. +Angr 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration about the renaming of the RCC article
Since, you participated, in the recent request to move the current article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you may be interested to know that an arbitration request has been recently made regarding that issue. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly_unfree_files/2009_July_7
Can I ask upon what you are basing the assessment that "Indidvidual letters of the alphabet can't be copyrighted, however artistically represented"? Does that mean that this is PD? This? The protection is for typefaces, not for works of art/corporate imagery that happen to be letters. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, but the result is the same as the image in question is a single letter from a typeface, as was made clear in the discussion. +Angr 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What typeface? I'm sorry, I'm really not following this. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Vicky Leandros Sommernacht am meer.jpg
I have started a discussion on a file that you once put a disputed fair use tag on. If you still have an opinion on this file, please join the discussion at. Aspects (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi, could you please review the article Syntactic Structures and make changes as you see fit? Thanks in advance. --Zaheen (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I could only do slight cosmetic changes. I don't know anything about the book. +Angr 06:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you nevertheless. --Zaheen (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Shams Al-ma'arif pp2.jpg
Dear Sir.

I don't think it will be an easy thing to get internet sources for such books. Among the reasons: I will try to append this source, from. Sorry because of unclear hand script of the book.--Email4mobile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They are too old (around 1200 years ago) to be copied/scanned and uploaded. Unfortunately we Arab, and Muslims aren't that interested with all history unless it is beneficial.
 * Such books are spiritual and thus almost forbidden since they conflict with Muslims religion.


 * No I don't have an original copy of the book itself but the complete scan, yes. I didn't scan it myself. Do you think it would be a fake scan? I even don't have the reprint of book, as in these covers little knowledge, greate knowledge. Long time ago I had this reprint myself. All I was interested in was to show that Arab were using magic squares as in the book. --Email4mobile (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, let me correct the wrong date I posted above, the book author died in around 1225, so the book date back about 800 years.
 * Secondly, it seems to be an endless discussion leading to investigation. I think I already gave you a similar link to that page, as well as a link to download that book. If I give you another website to download the whole book like 4 s h a r e d . c o m, this Wikipedia will block it, I guess it is a forbidden site. If you feel unsatisfied with that source, then you are welcome to delete it and as well as any files you find them related, Sir. Thank you.--Email4mobile (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for understanding. I really want to append reliable sources but it is almost impossible for such a book to be registered for the reasons I explained above. I tried to give a direct link to 4 shared . com to get you the exact book I captured image from, but this Wikipedia refused the link. On the other hand, the page on the web site I posted as a source if necessary is just a sample from the book, not the full resolution though you can still compare it character by character. You can also see that the top side of the page to the right has been already torn. --Email4mobile (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Invisibility cloak or Cloak or ...
I entered the term "Invisibility cloak" into the wikipedia search box. Here is the link: Search invisibilty cloak. You will see that there are about 23 articles that use the term Invisiblity cloak. Your article does not cover all this material - and that is your rationale. I don't think it is appropriate to have a redirect to only one article for this term. I will come back here for your reply. Ti-30X (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "my article", and if anything is missing from it, feel free to add to it. The point is, the disambiguation page that was there didn't include anything not in the article, except for several items that aren't invisibility cloaks. It makes no sense at all to have a disambiguation page called "Invisibility cloak" that has different content from an article called Cloak of invisibility. +Angr 08:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Template "ga-adj" on Wiktionary
I was hoping to enlist your help.

On Wiktionary, I had wanted to start a ga-adj template, but I am only just starting to learn about templates. I believe it would be a valuable resource.

I have an idea on how it could look [].

Your name was suggested by Atelaes since you had created the conj-2 template (I think).

Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. Reidca (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious response to ART
Thank you for your contribution to this article. I'm very appreciative whenever someone help out with this because I just don't know enough about the different religions to give a balanced view. Any further help would be most welcome. Joe407 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Imagination.jpg and TFA for Sept. 28
Please revert this edit to File:Imagination.jpg. Magazine covers where the date is clearly visible are self-sourcing: This cover came from the October 1950 issue of Imagination. Compare to File:Imagination Oct 1954 cover.gif. The latter explicitly mentions the source, but doing so adds no information not available by looking at the image.

The latter does say "scanned from a copy" but this is not important, as the image is in the public domain and a mere mechanical scan does nothing to change that.

Once you have reverted that change, please revert this edit to Today's featured article/September 28, 2009 by. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is useful to know, I scanned this image directly from a copy of the magazine in my possession. Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)