User talk:Mahagaja

Lower Sorbian language

Do you have any sources for [1]? "v" has been changed to "w" on German Wikipedia, which is the primary source for information in this article. Apart from this, as a native speaker of closely related Polish language I can tell you that "ł" letter corresponds to a sound similar to "w" in English word "wood" - at least in Polish.

I can't tell for sure that "w" is the correct sign, but I can prove that "v" cannot be appropriate here. Go to http://www.rbb-online.de/_/luzyca/beitrag_jsp/key=6686913.html click "video" and scroll the scrollbar to about 1/5 of total length. On the screen with subtitle "Chruszcz will uns in der Lausitz unterstutzen", the speaker, Lower Sorb, says "Łużyca" in Lower Sorbian. There is no "v" like in English "vet" whatsoever. --Derbeth ^talk 18:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Lower Sorbian, unlike Polish, the letters "ł" and "w" stand for the same phoneme; there's no phonemic distinction between /w/ and /v/. Phonetically, the sound in question is realized as [w], [v], or [β], depending on circumstances I've never seen fully explained; probably there's some amount of regional variation and some amount of variation between speakers. I know some people pronounce Łužyca with [w], as in that video, but other people pronounce it with [v], as in the CD that accompanies my Lower Sorbian textbook (which is my main source for the Lower Sorbian article). Thus it comes down to an abstract phonological question: do we want to consider the sound in question phonemically /v/ or phonemically /w/, given that it has both fricative and non-fricative surface allophones? I think for a variety of reasons, /v/ makes more sense: it allows parallelism with both /f/ and /v^j/, and when it gets devoiced, it becomes [f] (for example, archiw ends in [f]). —An gr 19:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understand. What textbook is it? --Derbeth ^talk 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niedersorbisch praktisch und verständlich by Erwin Hannusch (Bautzen: Domowina, 1998), ISBN 3-7420-1667-9. —An gr 06:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:State Street Logo.jpg

I saw you deleted the State Street Bank logo. I didn't upload it, but was wondering if you could restore it to see if I can write a fair use rationale. Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needed source information (including copyright holder) as well as a rationale. But it was also tagged as {{BadJPEG}}, so maybe it would be better if you could find a .png version (or find a .gif version and convert it to .png) and upload that instead of undeleting the .jpg. —An gr 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I was hoping it was just missing an article tag or something. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Locator Map for New York City

Hi Angr: With all the fancy locator and pushpin templates floating around, could you create a locator map for New York City? (along with the appropriate coordinate template to make it work). I could probably georefernce the map that's on the New York City page now but it's not in the soft wiki colors and includes red for the Bronx thus making it unusable for putting the red dot. The map could be similar to the one that's there now with boundaries for the boroughs. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. I'm kinda busy at the moment though. —An gr 18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't even know you're the right person to ask. I saw your user name associated with the new york state blank map and that's why I asked. If I should follow a different process feel free to let me know. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moreschi/If

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Moreschi/If. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ➪HiDrNick! 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More User:Moreschi/If

The deletion review has concluded your speedy deletion per G11 of the Speedy Deletion policy was incorrect and that consensus did favour the retention of the article, as such, the article has been undeleted. If you wish to propose the article for deletion, I would respectfully ask that you nominate the article for deletion rather than wheel war with another administrator (not me, I hasten to add). Nick (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's become sadly apparent that a large number of Wikipedians are committed to allowing Moreschi to spam talk pages with advertisements for a website that has a potential for causing tremendous damage to Wikipedia. It's truly disappointing to see how many Wikipedians are uninterested in Wikipedia's integrity, but fighting it is clearly an uphill battle I don't have the strength for. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one that you are entitled to, though I would ask that you refrain from calling Veropedia by any other name than Veropedia, and that you refrain from trying to impose your opinion on other users by misuse of the deletion tools. I'm firmly of the opinion that we have far more pressing problems affecting the neutrality and accuracy of our own articles here than we ever will do on Veropedia, but that's not an opinion I intend to force upon other users through the use of my administrative tools. Nick (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never misused my admin tools. Wikipedia policy calls for blatant advertising to be deleted on sight, and that's all I did. The fact that V*ropedia is a serious threat to Wikipedia is not why I deleted the page. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angr/If

Question for you, where do you get the idea that Veropedians will be POV because of our advertising? Personally, I take offense to that, as I have always tried to be NPOV. Our advertisers do not dictate what we write, nor would we compromise encylopedic standards for them. Please be correct in your accusations or take the page offline. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea from the simple fact that is impossible for any source of information to remain neutral while needing to retain its advertising sponsors. (Don't take it personally - I don't trust the neutrality of newspapers or TV stations that are funded by advertising either.) If the sponsors haven't yet pressured you to alter your content to suit them better, it's only because Viropedia is still new. Given time, they will. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My alarms are ringing on this one, too. Promoting within Wikipedia that Wikipedians spend their labor/time on things outside of Wikipedia will hurt Wikipedia. Also, I am concerned Veropedians are participating in Wikipedia discussions about Viropedia without disclosing their conflict of interest. What's worse, it is not just the nutty SPAs failing to disclose their conflict of interest. This situation is not good. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia looks much the same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If: lots of people arguing WP:ILIKEIT, totally overwhelming the few voices of reason pointing out that it violates policy. In the case of the AFD, no one ever really showed that Viropedia is notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, but it got kept because so many people (mostly Viropedians perhaps? only a handful acknowledged a COI) came out to vote keep. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be enough reliable source info for Veropedia. The Wikipedia related projects and forks (Citizendium · Enciclopedia Libre · Interpedia · Veropedia · WikiZnanie · Wikinfo · Wikiweise · Wikia · WikiWikiWeb) seem to be at Wikipedia to draw off editor labor that should be dedicated to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. They already piggy back off Wikipedia's fame by being included in Template:Wikipediahistory. I guess if the problem grows too big, Wikipedia will correct itself as it usually does. -- Jreferee t/c 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent more time editing material on Wikipedia than I have uploading that same work to Veropedia. Everything I've written for Veropedia has been written on Wikipedia, all the images I've found for the articles I've written have been uploaded to Commons, not only does Veropedia benefit, but Wikipedia, and ultimately, our readers, wherever they may choose to read free, open content. Nick (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection

Hello Angr. I observed the proceedings at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If and the fallout. I found the MfD by accident (well, that is, through advertising—from the user's signature from which that page is linked). Since then the "Veropedia" topic has become a significant concern for me, and I see also for a few other editors. My recent contribution history shows the posts I've made on the subject, if you're interested. The primary issue here is one of ethics and principle, not to be swept under the carpet by "buts" and "exceptions" and "I run Veropedia in my underwear" and so forth; and, in fact, as you recognized in the MfD, it is not to be swept under the carpet by "consensus" either. You know what?—I'd pay a nice little sum of money for an Amazonified website that is nicely integrated with Wikipedia and whose informal presence therein will only, undoubtedly, grow. I am looking for ideas on how to get a reasonably "official" opinion on whether this activity is permitted on Wikipedia. If it's permitted, my belief in this project will be irrevocably changed. If you'd like to write back, you know where I am. I hope those who don't understand my concern won't assume that I'm assuming the worst of the Veropedia people—this is a matter of principle. Free content is free content, but Wikipedia's brand, image, and association (the "halo effect") are NOT free. –Outriggr § 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish flag issue

Hi. I saw your post on this page[2]. I created a new image location here [3] on the commons for the image, but can you please tell me how to do one thing? How do I set up the corresponding page here on wikipedia([4]) to show all of the commons information like the old one does? Any help you could give me would be great, thanks. Fennessy (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, my bad. Do you know if there is any easy & quick way to convert the .png file into a .svg file? If you can't tell already I have practically zero experience dealing with images. Fennessy (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no quick and easy way to convert a .png into a .svg (the other direction is easy if you have Inkscape, though). But can't you just download Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to your hard drive and then upload it again under the correct name (being sure to retain all the source and licensing information)? If not, why not just let it slide? It's not really the end of the world if the image's name isn't strictly correct. Images' names don't appear in articles anyway, except in edit mode. We have lots of images with typos in the name and they just get kept (e.g. Image:Menonite Children.JPG where Mennonite is misspelled). It's not really that big a deal. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah done it. I guess I should have paid closer attention to what type of file I could download it as. But thanks, your advice was very helpful. Fennessy (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I don't know if you're aware of this, but your userpage may be against a policy called WP:SOAP because it propounds your views on a current affairs subject. It also doesn't assume good faith -WP:AGF- of your fellow editors. I assume you didn't know this, but it's not really appropriate for wikipedia. Please consider changing it.Merkinsmum 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

Hi Angr. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Why did you change IPA chart for English to take out the fact that our "p" is aspirated? Our pronunciation of the letter "p", for instance, is properly transcribed as pʰiː, not piː. For instance, in this image that somebody made to illustrate the IPA page:

I wrote an explanation for why it should be written this way on the chart on the talk page, could you respond to that and explain to me why you have to revert it? What's fun about Wikipedia is the wealth of knowledge it possesses, the way it's practically bursting at the seams with knowledge: check out the IPA chart for English, learn about the phenomenon of aspiration. Please explain why you reverted it.

I propose this solution: let the IPA chart for English page indicate this distinction, but also indicate that typically this distinction is left out because it is subphonemic in Eglish. (I don't know exactly what this means, but I think it means that we are not like the Ancient Greeks and we don't have a distinction between aspiration that alters the sense of our words as in the distinction between pi and phi, tau and theta. Is this what the term subphonemic means?

I wish you wouldn't revert me. I wasn't being a vandal, really.

David G Brault (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were being a vandal; vandalism isn't the only reason for reverting. As I said in the edit summary, aspiration is subphonemic in English, so it's not indicated in broad transcriptions. The image above shows a narrow transcription, but IPA chart for English is a guide for broad transcriptions. If you look at the page, you'll see that only phonemes are listed there. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the thing on reverting? It says:

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Why are you not following this approach? Even if you are putting the proper thing in the article, and I am putting the improper thing, you still are not supposed to just revert me. Heck, I say it should be my way, and you say it should be your way. So we are to discuss it until we see eye to eye. For you to merely revert me is not helpful and it directly goes against the actual policy. Please respond to this. David G Brault (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alien 3 gamebox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alien 3 gamebox.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin semi protection

Can you please consider to install the discreet version "sprotect2" ? Thanks in advance. Lear 21 10:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but since it's only semiprotected due to vandalism, not fully protected due to edit-warring, you could have done that yourself. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn´t knew that. Lear 21 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mödlareuth

What category could it be in? It can't be in either Town category as it is not a town. Agathoclea 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it a town? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a village, which is not even one village as such but two parts. One is part of the town of Gefell the other is part of the municipality of Töpen. Agathoclea 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems like hair-splitting to me (I'd say villages are towns too, just like ponies are horses), but if you insist, how about Category:Municipalities in Bavaria and Category:Geography of Thuringia? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of is the one I was looking for - and then we can sort them from there once we get better categories. Thanks Agathoclea 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Newari

Hi Angr

I saw in the history of Classical Newari that you were the one who redirected this article to Nepal Bhasa. I've deleted the redirection and re-created the independent article as a stub, on the basis that the two languages have different ISO 639-2 codes. Hope you don't mind, maybe you've long ago forgotten about it anyway (was two years ago ...). universimmedia (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're right, I'd long ago forgotten about it anyway! —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foetus_Sink.jpg

You tagged this picture as copyright disputed because of "No indication of copyright holder, as required by WP:NFCC#10," but the Non-free album cover template already on the page states, "[T]he copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question." Isn't that an indication of the copyright holder? -- rynne (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to know who specifically. Is it the publisher of the recording? If so, who is the publisher of the recording? Is it the artist who made the cover artwork? If so, who is that artist? A general statement saying "it's probably the publisher or artist" isn't sufficient. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that information is not available on the album itself, can the artwork never be shown on Wikipedia? The artwork itself is undoubtably the creation of the musician who recorded the album, J. G. Thirlwell, but the linear notes contain no credits regarding the images at all, just informtion on the musical credits. I'll try to get in touch with the man himself to query about the credit. -- rynne (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with tradition

In continuing with WP:AN/I's tradition of complaining about users without ever mentioning it to their faces (or at least talk pages), you may wish to be made aware of this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Image_deletion_spree_by__Angr, which I have already responded to but which it would seem only logical to inform you about. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]