User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

FYI

Hi Angr, I know you're a professional linguist, and I also know you're a Wikipedia admin. So, I'd like to ask you to please take a look at the hundreds of contributions made by User:P-A. in recent months. For an idea of what the problem might be, please take a look at what I just wrote on his talk page. Thank you very much, Pasquale 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Free and non-free content

Is there a debate or discussion available on free and non-free content that sheds a light on future directions of Wikipedia, or at least a major inclination? If there is a way of using non-free content, users will definitely make use of it. And, no amount of argument will remove all non-free content. But, as far I can see, I may attempt to remove all non-free content uploaded by me, if there is a compelling need to take a stand against all non-free content. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are debates and discussions about non-free content all over Wikipedia; the first places to look are Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use review. But there is no consensus on changing the current status quo, and I'd say the views of Wikipedians are arranged along a bell curve: at one end there are a few people like me who want no non-free content at all (which is the status quo on a large number of other Wikimedia projects, including German Wikipedia, the second largest Wikipedia project), in the middle are a large number of people who think a limited amount of non-free content is acceptable provided it could never be replaced with a free equivalent and provided it adds significantly to the article where it's used (this is the status quo here and the idea that current policy is based on), and at the other end are a few people who think non-free content should be allowed wherever it doesn't violate U.S. laws on fair use, or even in cases where it might violate that law but the Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely to ever get sued for it (for example, images from defunct newspapers or photographs taken by governments of countries that no longer exist, like Nazi Germany or East Germany). As long as you can convince that big group of people in the middle of the bell curve that your image complies with existing policy, it's unlikely to be deleted, but you still have to count on people from my end coming along from time to time and challenging your rationales, because whether or not an image "significantly contributes to readers' understanding of the article" (a requirement of non-free images) is a subjective decision that people will always disagree on. It's unlikely Wikipedia policy will shift away from the center of that curve any time soon, and if you've read the parable on my user page and are comfortable being among those who bring fried chicken to a vegan dinner party, then there's no need to remove the images you've uploaded. But if you're persuaded by my argument that an encyclopedia that includes non-free images cannot seriously call itself a free content encyclopedia, of course I would be delighted if you did remove the non-free images you're responsible for. That's what I did a year and a half ago: I had uploaded some non-free images myself, and they were perfectly within policy. But I deleted them again because I felt that these images, despite being policy-compliant, were part of the problem, not part of the solution. —Angr 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Date Formats in Wiki Tables and Charts

To: User talk:Angr

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Format for Dates

Thanks for your reply. I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly. If I literally type in a date in wikified format such as [[1942-02-09]] … that will cause (a) the date to appear in the format of "February 9, 1942" … and at the same time (b) the date to sort numerically as 1942,02,09. Is my understanding correct? I just want to make sure. That seems too easy and too good to be true. If so, it is an extremely simple fix to what I thought was a complex problem. But, I want to make sure my understanding is correct. Please let me know. If so, I have a follow up question also that you perhaps may be able to answer. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk: Joseph A. Spadaro. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

If you literally type in a date in wikified format such as [[1942-02-09]] , that will make the date appear to a logged-in user however the user has set their preferences to display dates. Users who aren't logged in, and those who haven't set their preferences, will see it as 1942-02-09. I'm pretty sure the date will also sort numerically as 1942,02,09, but you might want to experiment with this in the sandbox and make sure. —Angr 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for the quick reply. Can you please take a look at this: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page11#This is the Chart that I am Talking About ... and look at the very last chart at the bottom of the page. What you have suggested does not seem to work ... or have I done something wrong? Please let me know. For example ... it seems that the third column (date of birth) is incorrectly sorting by the letters F, J, N (February, June, November) ... when it should be correctly sorting by the years 1804, 1983, and 2004. Any ideas? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, looks like I was wrong. It is indeed sorting by month name. What a pain. Sorry! You might ask at WP:VP/T if anyone has any ideas, but I suspect the only solution is to go to Bugzilla and file a bug report about it. —Angr 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will go over to the Village Pump, and Bugzilla if necessary, as you suggested. Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel Image

Dear Angr,

I understand that you've orphaned the image of Johnny Rebel (singer). This has actually happened twice recently, and both times I explained that Johnny Rebel is the pseudonym of a musician who refused to have his picture taken (because of his controversial music). Therefore, there is no known image of Johnny Rebel that could replace the image currently in use (of one of his album covers showing a klansman). Cannot the image be restored because of this reason? Sincerely, --Skb8721 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's an album cover. Its own tag says the image may be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". —Angr 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvira Image

(Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 16#Image:ElviraWCGV08111984.jpg) I noticed that while you discussed it's fair use status inside Midnight movies, you did not discuss it at all inside of Cassandra Peterson. That's probably because it had been deleted prematurely from that article. You might want to check it out in that context. Kww 02:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on this. I'm relatively new here, and suddenly found that I have to fight to protect some things — that might have been easily handled had the person who uploaded the image had asked for a GFDL license.

As such, I very much support your position against the use of "fair use" images. How do I add your little logo/statement to my page? Nitelinger 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Better yet....While I assume that it is a free image, may I have your permission to add it to my user page? Thank you. Nitelinger 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the userbox? Just add {{User:Angr/User no fair use}} to your user page. —Angr 06:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but may I use it? Thanks! Nitelinger 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course; it's not mine. —Angr 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You may enjoy further discussion on my talk page re: criteria 1 for the use of non-free images. Nitelinger 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to verify: It is a free image, correct? Nitelinger 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't be allowed in user space at all. (Non-free images are allowed only in article space.) See its description at Image:No fair use images.svg: the creator released it into the public domain. —Angr 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't pick up on that nuance here. Nitelinger 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA chart

Hi Angr,

You might also want to take a look at this: Help:IPA pronunciation key. I'm hoping to link it to the IPA2 template once it's ready. kwami 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Berlin article

Please consider to convert the protection tag into something discreet. The current tag distracts the readability of the articles introduction. And: Are you able to change the version to the established one [1]? It would be much appreciated. The current protected version is the disputed one. Thanks in advance Lear 21 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what Jossi has already said at Talk:Berlin#Protected. —Angr 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic wiki encyclopedia

I think that you may be interested in such thing (I heard for this today). Glottopedia site and their announcement at linguistlist.org. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks interesting! —Angr 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Alpha with tonos and oxia.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Alpha with tonos and oxia.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurbaan

I removed your tagging as it clearly has the rationale ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)