User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 59

Your Séadna transcription
your Séadna transcription is wonderful - but there are some incorrectly proofread words. If you do a word search on the whole thing, you will see that Diarmaid should always be Diarmuid in the book and not Diarmaid. Tine should always be teine and not tine etc. Seán is Seághan and not Seán. I think there are other things, but these account for most of the incorrectly transcribed words. Thanks for doing this work. Tá an-obair déanta agat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.10.127 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The original text came from a version written in modern spelling. Proofreading against the original version isn't complete yet. That's why you'll often find spellings like Diarmaid and Seán, especially in the later part of the book. —Angr (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Angr, I'm talking about the already proofed pages - I am only in chapter 20, so I haven't come up to unproofed pages yet. But Diarmaid, Seán, tine, leo and treo are frequently found in the proofed pages, instead of Diarmuid, Seághan, teine, leó and treó - this is not a big thing - but you are very near the end of your proofing, and if you do a search for the five words I mentioned, you should catch some unproofed words, and those 5 words account for the majority of the proofing errors I have seen. I am using your transcriptions to produce seanachló versions on my corkirish.com site, and correcting your transcriptions as I go... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.10.127 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going through the pages and searching for the words you mentioned. —Angr (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just changed álainn to áluinn at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Seadna.djvu/179 - proofreading is difficult and requires more than one person doing it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.35.188 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are transcribing the 4 gospels as translated by Peadar Ua Laoghaire, but then so am I, and I have all of Matthew done and 8 chapters of Mark. I haven't finished putting the footnotes and verse numbers in, but I have got much further than you on Wikisource, and it seems crazy for two people to be doing the same thing independently. I would send you my file if you wanted it, and then it would be quicker for you to do Matthew and Mark - basically you could use my file and check it against the images of the 4 gospels and that way we would be helping each other. I think the proofreading is much more successor when more than one person is involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.189.122 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Claude D. Taylor logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Claude D. Taylor logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
P.S. - WP is not going to allow a drawing derived from a copyrighted photograph any less (more?) than a properly tagged non-free actual image of a deceased subject. We can go this route if you wish. NFCC#1 or #8, is it? The image will not be deleted as "orphaned" if I have anything to say about it: so let's start the "jibber-jabber". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. That's why I changed the image to the postage stamp, which is definitely free. I've nominated the drawing for deletion at Commons. —Angr (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a drawing based on this copyrighted image, it would seem. Or possibly this one: same photo session... Doc9871 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, possibly, but I'm much more reluctant to nominate it for deletion on the assumption that the Deutsche Bundespost committed a copyvio by issuing that stamp. —Angr (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "If it's a derivative work of a copyrighted photo it needs to be deleted from Commons." Those were your words.  I'm pretty sure the Deutsche Bundepost didn't commit a copyvio, too: but it is a derivative of a copyrighted photo.  No free images of Jim Morrison are known to exist, and any "artwork" of him is going to be based on a previously published photograph... Doc9871 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from all that... I feel strongly that the orphaned image meets all 10 of the NFCC criteria, and that this brings an interesting twist to NFCC #1. I don't feel this artwork (however free) conveys the same meaning to the reader as the tagged photograph of Morrison performing, esp. as no free photographs of him are available.  I usually do the old BRD thing (reinserting the image), and require the editor (admin in this case) to take the file to FfD before allowing the image to be deleted as "orphaned" (hate that ;>).  The community should be involved in this unusual case, and if I lose - so be it.  I'd appreciate a "shout out" back, and I realize I have until the 20th.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is a free photograph of him: File:Jim Morrison 1970.jpg, cropped from his Florida mugshot. (Not all U.S. state governments release their public records into the public domain, but Florida does.) There are also other possibilities at commons:Category:Jim Morrison, though many of them look like derivative works of photographs as well. Another thing to keep in mind is that any photograph of him published in the U.S. before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (PD-US-no notice), so they can be used directly, and derivative works of them can be licensed however the creator of the derivative wants. —Angr (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was argued that File:Jim Morrison 1970.jpg was not appropriate for the infobox per WP:UNDUE when that was done some time not long ago. Not being known primarily as a criminal but as a musician, it's not really NPOV to have that image as the one that primarily depicts the subject.  The full mug is in The Doors article, so it is readily obvious what the crop is of: and it gives negative "light" to the subject.  It would be, IMO, like putting any mug shot of any celebrity in their respective infoboxes, cropped or not - the reaction would be pretty swift if it was done on, say, Bill Gates' page.   The artwork images in the commons are indeed all derived from copyrighted works - and I still think that a drawing such as one of these is not appropriate for the infobox.  There really aren't any free images of Jim Morrison that are appropriate for the infobox, I guess is what it comes down to.  File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg is a crop of a photo I found at Bing.  There are several versions: here's one with a copyright tag, and here's the same image with no copyright tag (it doesn't seem to be "erased").  I'm unsure of the copyright status, hence the non-free tags: maybe it is public domain after all?  That would be excellent!  If not, do you feel that any parts of the NFCC are not met with the image?  If it should be deleted, it shouldn't be because it was orphaned.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; it isn't the case that there are no free images of him, so NFCC#1 is not met. —Angr (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Free equivalent. A photograph is not equivalent to artwork on a postage stamp or a drawing.  So I would argue that NFCC#1 is met, and the photo of the stamp does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a photo of the subject. Doc9871 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious about point #3 - what's your take on that? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For purposes of showing what he looked like, a photorealistic drawing is as good as a photograph, and a mug shot is certainly as good as a concert photo. As I see it, we have three choices for the infobox image: (1) a free image from commons:Category:Jim Morrison, (2) another demonstrably free image that hasn't been uploaded to Commons yet (e.g. a photograph that was published without a copyright notice before 1978), or (3) no image at all. As for point 3, it applies to copyrighted stamps, not those in the public domain. —Angr (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But... aren't meeting the NFCC policy and the ten criteria as being overlooked as (4)? It's there for a reason (as are image tags), and is certainly an option for the infobox: as it has been since December of last year.  The mug is not per WP:UNDUE, whether it's free, cropped, whatever (it's been tried before).  None of the images at the commons are "photorealistic" - maybe this one?  Could you point me to where it says a photorealistic drawing is as good as a photograph and therefore supercedes the NFCC - I've never seen that?  I see no image restrictions at WP:IBX or Help:Infobox, either.  Is this "rascally old" NFCC#1 being interpreted?  I truly don't think it fails #1, and would rather have the community decide rather than the opinion of only one good editor.  Hopefully we'll sort this out before the 20th, when it's BRD-FfD time.  As far as letting it be deleted as orphaned: I just can't do it, and will obviously have to reinsert it before the 20th to prevent that.  As I said, if it's found to not meet the 10 NFCC: it's gone...
 * BTW: how can a stamp be copyrighted and not be in the public domain? It's a stamp: aren't they pretty much all in the public domain when you put them on a letter?  Some stamps we can photograph and use on WP, and some we can't?  I'm quite confused there (and I'm really not being facetious);  but what I was saying about point #3 was "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject."  What does that actually mean?  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We're going to get this rolling, okay? I don't have to wait until the 20th, and you haven't commented (or contributed) recently.  You can revert my "revert" - but it's best to take it to WP:FFD.  I'm prepared for whatever outcome is decided.  Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The image doesn't meet the NFCC policy, because there is a free equivalent, namely the mug shot. I'm sorry if you think it violates WP:UNDUE, but it does show what he looked like, which is all the nonfree image is being used for too. You would never get consensus at FFD that the nonfree image has to be used instead of the mugshot simply because of your interpretation of WP:UNDUE. The bit about a photorealistic drawing (by which I was referring to File:Jim Morrison ZeichnungSchuschke.jpg) being as good as a photograph is my own interpretation, but there's certainly no rule at WP:IBX or elsewhere that photographs are inherently superior to drawings, paintings, etc., and of course for people who lived before the invention of photography, drawings or paintings are all we have. The image won't be deleted merely because it's orphaned; it was orphaned because it violates policy, and returning it to the article won't change that. Whether stamps are public domain or copyrighted depends on the authority issuing them. The Deutsche Post releases its stamps into the public domain; the U.S.P.S. did until 1977, but since 1978 its stamps have been copyrighted (see commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain). What point #3 means is that an image of a (copyrighted) stamp can be used in an article to illustrate the stamp itself (some stamp designs are in themselves notable enough for mention in an article), but not to illustrate the thing shown on the stamp. So for example, the USPS's Elvis stamp could be used in an article discussing the "referendum" the USPS held a few years back on whether their commemorative Elvis stamp should show the young, slim Elvis of the 50s or the old, fat Elvis of the 70s; but it couldn't be used just to show Elvis. —Angr (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

aorist
Hi, Angr. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist, if you're interested. The main dispute centers around calling the aorist a "tense", but there are other issues as well. (I don't know if you're interested in grammatical topics or not.) — kwami (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uggh. Fools rush in. I personally don't think there is or ever has been a person on the planet who truly understands aspect. —Angr (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we not help each other on wikipedia
Instead of change my edit back to formal errors You didn't correct the aleged misspelling. But 1. It's a fact that Preussia continued to exist even after the fall of the empire in november 1918. Not until the summer 1945 did the existance of Preussia end. 2. The formal name of Germany during the whole period 1919-1945 was Deutches Reich (German State) and nothing else. Informally Hitler called "his" Germany Drittes Reich (nouns is aleays spelled with a capital as first letter in german). A short text about the three ticket fare zones and the three different rail system is not unnecessary, specially since there is a table without explinations. What is U-Bahn ?, What is S-Bahn ? and what is the forgotten regional train system ? For both berliners and tourists this is at least as importaint as the table of their lengths or the info about bike roads f.i. I'm no member of Wikipedia but when reading poor facts I do sometimes write a couple of lines. Since english isn't my first language I have always before got help. And I did give a very good reference to all public transport including the A-B-C zones, and what they mean. Like zone C is in the state of Brandenburg about 15-20 km outside the border to the city/state of Berlin. If You event can't read a german tubemap - then I don't think You should change more then the misspelling in english. Concering the existence of Preussia you It's common knowlidge that this german state continued to exist after the fall of the empire. The formal names of germany is as follows: 1871-1918 "Deutches Kaiserreich" / "Deuthes Reich" (emperor Wilhelm I didn't like the emperer-title, and on maps of the time both names can be found) 1919-1945 "Deuthes Reich", 1949-1989 "Bundesrepublik Deutchland" (west) and "Deutche Demokratiche Republik" (DDR, GDR in english; east) and from october 1990- only "Bundesrepublik Deutchland" - where (the whole of) Berlin became one of the german states. As I wrote government and parlament remained in Bon until 1999 when the Parliament was rebuilt, after been a ruin/remains since the fire in march 1933. Neighter the nazis or the communists had done any work on the building for 56-57 years and it took 8 years to rebuild it.

Please help me making the article better instead of just destroy my improvements. Even if I'm not a member. /reguards Johnny Boeing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.40.162 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't and amn't
Would you look into the naming dispute here? -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Consonants versus examples for WP:IPA for Burmese
I see you reverted my changes. It just seemed reasonable to include this because most of the IPA pages for non-Latin script languages (among them Arabic, Korean, Thai, Armenian, Georgian, Hebrew, Hindi and Urdu, and Serbo-Croatian) do not use examples and instead use orthographical equivalents for those sounds. The ones that do, Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian and Russian, seem to be in the minority, not the other way around. I also think that it's a helpful guide since the IPA transcriptions consistently correspond to the spellings in Burmese, especially vowels and tones (consonants are a little trickier).

Also, as for ɪ and ʊ, are you entirely sure that they're not separate phonemes altogether? I'm no linguist, but I certainly feel that these two vowels qualify as being separate "basic distinctive units of speech sound". It seems inherently misleading to me, since a transcription like [siʔ] (as in seat) would never be heard in Burmese. Tagalog separates i and ɪ as two separate phonemes, at least on the IPA page, as well. What are your thoughts on this? --Hintha (t) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about the other non-Latin alphabet pages, but I still think it's more helpful to show examples in context. Perhaps those other pages were drawn up by someone who wasn't familiar enough with the language in question to provide example words. As for ɪ and ʊ, they're definitely not separate phonemes in Burmese. They occur only in contexts where i and u don't occur, and vice versa (complementary distribution). In English, [ʃit] and [ʃɪt] are different words (a minimal pair), but in Burmese, there's no contrast between [ʃiʔ] and [ʃɪʔ]: [ʃɪʔ] is the surface realization of underlying /ʃiʔ/. Using [ɪ] in a transcription is fine when the specific realization of /i/ is the issue, but for things like transcriptions of names, it's simply providing too much detail. It's the same in English: we can transcribe pan as either [pæn] or [pʰæ̃n], depending on how much detail is relevant. Providing too much detail (too narrow a transcription) can be confusing for the reader as it makes it difficult for them to "see the forest for the trees". —Angr (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We generally transcribe allophones that would be salient to an English speaker. A few of the IPA-xx keys are purely phonemic, such as WP:IPA for French, but many are not, like WP:IPA for German, WP:IPA for Spanish, and WP:IPA for Mandarin. Which allophones to include is of course somewhat arbitrary, but we've generally not had much problem; the keys tend to read like the description of sounds at the beginning of a basic xx-English dictionary. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, Angr. I personally still feel that it's significant enough to include in the key, especially given that Burmese isn't too vowel-rich anyway. In typical speech, it's sometimes common to exaggerate the creaky tone so much that it's indistinguishable from a glottal stop, so that ḭ could end up sounding like iʔ, but I realize that the key is very general. But my expertise on linguistics is limited, so your opinion holds weight over mine. I hadn't noticed that Hybernator had pointed that out as well.--Hintha (t) 06:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate use of administrator privileges
Blocking User:Radagast3 was a totally inappropriate action. It is blatantly obvious that you did so merely because he disagreed with you. He is clearly seeking a community consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible - his actions were not a direct violation of WP policy; rather, they come from a different interpretation of the policy, and it is the consensus of the community that will determine the outcome of the issue. But blocking him was WAY over the line. StAnselm (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking him was the only way to stop him from continuing to restore copyright violations. He had been warned twice to stop doing this, , and he's been around WP long enough that he really should have known better. It's better than getting a bot to blank all of his contributions, as recently happened to another user who added masses of copyvios to Wikipedia. There isn't really anything to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible; WP:NFCC already has consensus. —Angr (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked and asked others at WP:ANI to consider if sanctions against you are appropriate. I consider this abuse of your tools. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Angr, I must say I agree with Fences and Windows. I have seen you in the archives :) &#39;&#39;FellowScientist&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Turkish exonyms
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Turkish exonyms. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — — I discussed this with you before and am just now getting to posting it. —  AjaxSmack   04:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
An AfD in which you recently took part has spun off a discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines which may interest you. Handschuh-talk to me 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)