User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Paintscratch

Hello, I created a profile for an online automotive touchup paint website, paintscratch.com. You deleted it, citing "advertisement." I've seen plenty of wikipedia articles for companies. Why did you remove this one exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nhtahoe (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I admit, interpreting WP:CSD#G11 is very subjective. In general, articles on websites are only allowed at Wikipedia if the website itself is notable enough to have been discussed in multiple independent sources; please read WP:WEB for info on this. —Angr 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, notability is highly subjective if you ask me. Paintscratch has been in business for several years, sold to 100s of thousands of customers, and has been featured in newspaper articles and on television. How am I to avoid getting a profile of a company that perhaps a few Wikipedia editors don't know about removed?— Nhtahoe 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's been featured in newspaper articles and on television, then it meets the notability criteria at WP:WEB. I'll undelete it so you can add those references. —Angr 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

iolra

Lieber Angr, bin ich richtig in der annahme, dass die ältere schreibung für "iolraí" iolraidhe ist, oder bin ich da falsch? (http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/iolra). Lg http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.144.54 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vermutlich, aber ich schlag erstmal lieber in Dinneen nach. Kann ich heute abend machen. —Angr 08:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vielen dank!!! http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.144.54 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... habe gerade in Dinneen nachgeschlagen; er gibt gar kein Plural dafür an. Nominativ war iolradh, Genitiv iolraidh. Von den Formen würde man eigentlich ein Plural iolraidh erwarten, aber ich weiß nicht, ob es diese Form wirklich gibt/gab. Plural von "Plural" ist sowieso selten; nur 5 unterschiedliche Googlehits für die moderne Form "na hiolraí"--und die wurden nicht unbedingt von Muttersprachlern geschrieben! —Angr 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stimmt, im deutschen und irischen gäbe es ja eigentlich auch selten die notwendigkeit, eine pluralform zu verwenden :))) Danke fürs nachschlagen!! Die form "na hiolraí" wäre dann nach der rechtschreibung vor 1958 "na hiolraidhe", oder? Lg http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.144.54 12:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ich weiß es nicht. Entweder na hiolraidh oder na hiolraidhe wird es wohl gewesen sein, aber ohne Beweis möchte ich nichts Festes sagen. —Angr 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Danke dir!! :))) Lg http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.144.54 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle Irish

Hi Angr, I've read that the term "Middle Irish" is considered "Pro Irish bias" amongst some (possibly most though I dont know but Id guess) Scottish Gaelic speakers and was wondering what your take is regarding the linguistic legitamacy of the term to describe the written language of Gaelic in Scotland up until the 18th Century? Also could you reccommend any good sources book-wise to order from the library as to Middle Irish, particularly in the context of Scotland? Thankyou.82.41.4.66 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion. Ethnologue calls the written language of Ireland and Scotland up until the 18th century "Hiberno-Scottish Gaelic" but that seems to be a neologism coined to avoid accusations of pro-Irish bias. I don't know of any books off the top of my head, but I can look up some references later. —Angr 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the reply and if you could come up with any more sources Id be grateful:}82.41.4.66 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources I can find generally say that the written Gaelic of Scotland was identical to the written Gaelic of Ireland up to the 17th century; however, that's not the language called "Middle Irish". Middle Irish is the name for the stage up to the 12th century; after that, it's called "Early Modern Irish" or "Classical Irish" or the like (I see that our article needs to be updated in that regard). Since that's about the same time period as Scottish Gaelic begins to be attested, I suppose "Early Scottish Gaelic" or "Classical Scottish Gaelic" could be used, although that would cover up the fact that the written language of Scotland and Ireland was basically identical until the 17th/18th century. I suppose Ethnologue's term really is the most neutral, but as I say, I don't think it's particularly common.

I'm afraid I'm not finding much in the way of sources for "Hiberno-Scottish Gaelic" in Scotland. If you can read Irish, there's a chapter on Classical Modern Irish in Stair na Gaeilge (ISBN 0-901519-90-1), but it's more focused on the language in Ireland than in Scotland. I don't know of a history of Scottish Gaelic, though that doesn't mean there isn't one. (Since my own interest is more in Irish than in Scottish Gaelic, I could easily simply be unaware of it.) —Angr 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, itll be some time before I can read and understand much Gaelic of either language (studying them on and off (mostly off) with internet resources and no teacher I mean.}), but if you could tell me the sources stating that both languages were identical as a written language up to the eighteenth century (and which ones are most reliable from a linguit's point of view) that would be just as useful, cheers:}82.41.4.66 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at The Celtic Languages edited by Martin J. Ball (ISBN 0-415-01035-7). The Scottish Gaelic chapter (by William Gillies) says, "in the ... Early Modern period (twelfth to seventeenth century) the extant manuscript literature [in Scottish Gaelic] uses the pan-Gaelic educated dialect 'Classical Irish', in which vernacularisms are, in general, rare..." —Angr 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Angr:}82.41.4.66 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi! Thanks for the message on commons:Image:pookalam.jpg. Please go ahead and delete it. It was uploaded from the Malayalam Wikipedia. Only later did I realise that none of the image policies are implemented there. So, chances are it is copyrighted and used without permission.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

{{no rationale}}

You added the a {{no rationale}} to Image:Dunbarcheer2005.jpg this morning. But the image was uploaded 2006-01-20, before the 2006-05-04 start date for qualifying for no-rationale-based CSD. That's why I only had a {{fair use disputed}} on the image. Probably the image could be removed from the page it's on, and then tagged with {{orfud}}, but nothing prohibits it from being re-added to the page and un-orphaning it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Banjee

Hi Angr - You removed the BLP template from Talk:Banjee that I had placed there. WP:BLP applies to any article that includes material related to living persons. The Banjee article identifies the living person in the article photo as a banjee. The article includes a detailed quote by living person Tim'm T. West about being a Banjee. In view of this, I believe that the BLP template is appropriate for the article and I ask that you reconsider your decision to remove the BLP template. -- Jreferee 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Banjee isn't a biography about a living person; it's an article about a word referring to a group of people. The person in the photo isn't identifiable (his face is covered). The BLP template just doesn't apply. —Angr 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AZCardinalslarge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AZCardinalslarge.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Template BLP

Template BLP was developed separately from {{WPBiography}} and then incorporated into {{WPBiography}} as a good idea. I started a discussion here about using Template BLP. If we cannot figure out good guidelines on use of Template BLP outside of biography article, then Template BLP's use should be limited to being used in {{WPBiography}} and Template BLP should be removed as a separate template. -- Jreferee 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:AberdeenCentre-prev.jpg

You deleted this image because it's "replaceable fair use." However, the building that is depicted is no longer in existence (it was torn down about six years ago). Would it still fit under that category? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia help

Why is that when I first open a page it is different to the page that appears after I go back to the main page after writing something in the discussion page. For example, when I opened the English page it had a list of all the countries where English is an official language. When I went back to the page the list was gone.

Pages can be edited between one viewing and the next. The English language page has a list of all the countries where English is an official language in the infobox on the right in the section "Official status" towards the bottom. (Please note the "Spoken in:" section at the top is not about English as an official language, but is merely a list of some of the largest countries where English is widely spoken.) —Angr 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you one that one. The infobox states that English the official language of some commonwealth countries and then lists a few non commonwealth countries. I find this list a bit vague and such misrepresenting the widespread use of the English language.

"Official language" conveys a specific meaning about the constitutional status of English in certain countries. English is not official in every country where it's widely spoken. For example, it's not official in the United States. —Angr 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New system available for displaying flags and nation/province names

Are you interested in simplifying the code used to create User:Angr#Wanderings? I would like to offer you a chance to use some new lookup templates that I created in my user space. They can look up the names and/or flags of all nations that have a top level domain code. You can see the details on those at {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetCountryName}} and {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetCountryFlag}}.

Furthermore, {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetProvinceName}} and {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetProvinceFlag}} can do the same for the US and Canada. I can add support for any nation supported by {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetCountryName}} with your help. (I don't know those nations and don't have the time to research them.)

These template were created for use with my templates to create my version of "Where I have been". ({{User:Will Pittenger/templates/Nation Flag Entry}} and {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/Province Flag Entry}} create more than what you display. However, you are welcome to use them too if you want. If you do, be sure to copy the legend from my user page.) Even so, when I created them, I knew they might be used for things like user boxes and other stuff. In fact, I welcome such usage.

All flags are believed to be free use (not fair use) SVGs. You should not get into trouble using them on your user page. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

I read in the talk page for this page that you were against having this page on WP (which I agree with). There is now an AFD up for the article, if you are interesting in chipping in. Booshakla 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Are Greek nekro (death) and Latin negro (black) related?Cameron Nedland 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Greek nekro- is related to Latin necare "to kill", though. —Angr 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks a lot.Cameron Nedland 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography of living persons adminship

"Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia." Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's highly ironic that after the stream of rabid abuse you inflicted on me in December you expect me to support an idea of yours. I'm also astonished that anyone so full of hate can call himself a Christian. —Angr 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr images

You have started to delete images that I have uploaded to en.WP. Since you post a very generic notice about the offense, I don't know if the problem is a question of a) source identification, b) license, c) fair-use, or d) whatever. I totally support your clean-up efforts but please help me to help you and tell me how to fix stuff before deleting it and increasing to everyone involved.

Regarding the now deleted {Image:1992 sunburst yellow flickr Vikas GarG.jpg}, if it was a question of source id, I posted the original URL and still you deleted the picture.

Was the problem then about licensing and/or fair use? This and other pictures I've uploaded, including the now on-notice {Image:2006 copper red flickr Coffee Monster.jpg}, were taken from Flickr under a CC-license. As I understand it, this is a free-use license and thus it does not clash with fair-use guidelines which mandate a fair-use picture to be replaced by a free-use picture whenever possible.

If you could shed some light here before proceeding with your clean-up, I would appreciate. --maf 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:1992 sunburst yellow flickr Vikas GarG.jpg, the Flickr source showed that the photographer released it under CC-BY-ND 2.0. Unfortunately, that isn't one of the Creative Commons Licenses that is acceptable at Wikipedia. The ND part of the license means that derivative works are prohibited, but Wikipedia policy requires that derivative works be allowed. The only acceptable CC licenses here are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. For Image:2006 copper red flickr Coffee Monster.jpg the problem was that you didn't provide a link directly to the Flickr page. Now you have, and I see that that image is also CC-BY-ND, meaning it can't be used here either. The best way to find Flickr images is to use their advanced search function at http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/ and click all three of the boxes at the bottom: "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos", "Find content to use commercially", and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". —Angr 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it, thank you for your explanation. In fact, this little bit is much more useful than all the guidelines that I came upon. It may be possible that within those guidelines is the same explanation that you gave me, but it would surely be deeply buried. As you are an admin and interested in this stuff, I would suggest putting this explanation more visible in the guidelines and in your notice templates. --maf 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Had to return here because (obviously) I can't delete (my) images myself. I'll give you a list by day's end. Is that OK with you or do you prefer that I put them to the Images for Deletion process? --maf 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-presumed

If the person has not said GFDL there is no logical or legal way to make that assumption.Geni 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

File:AlbertReynolds.jpg

You deleted File:AlbertReynolds.jpg (Log) as it was a recreation of previously deleted content. User:Snappy56 has just uploaded the exact image yet again, this time at Image:AReynolds2.jpg. Could you possibly take a look at this? The image has been tagged with {{attribution}} but I am not sure as to the validity of this tag in this instance. Cheers. --Bob 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Of course {{attribution}} was nonsense; the source cited said nothing of the sort. —Angr 19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template:User no GFDL

In the AFD topic you wrote "It's convenient to have a place listing the users whose image uploads need to be monitored especially closely." I'm not referring to you when I say this, but I've had problems with these 'fair use inquisitors' who try rounding up every fair use image I and others have uploaded and delete them on the strictest set of premises and I don't feel comfortable with having users watching my every move.

While you certainly shouldn't look the other way when it comes to fair use, I don't think its fair to single out a group of people and constantly monitor their uploads just because they disagree with certain policies.

For the record, I'm not completely against GFDL; I've uploaded 16 GFDL images lately here. The purpose of the template is NOT for users against the policy or for deliberately sabatoging the rules, its for people who are frustrated with the low quality of some GFDL images when compared to fair use ones.

I hope I didn't come out as sounding hostile in writing this as from what I can tell you seem to be very polite in contrast to some of the more confrontational users I've had dealings with.--CyberGhostface 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all okay. Please just be aware that I wrote that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. —Angr 06:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay...thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for overreacting.--CyberGhostface 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 204.218.240.68

This IP is used by multiple users because it is the IP of a school. I believe that rather than blocking the whole IP only annonymous users from that IP should be blocked as to allow for people who use wikipedia seriously can still continue to do so. Shotmenot 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Only anonymous users are blocked. —Angr 14:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for only blocking anonymous people, that way i can still help the wiki community at school.Shotmenot 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Twiggy promo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion, but I was not the one to close the deletion discussion or to delete it. That was User:Ed g2s, whom I am now notifying. —Angr 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry, I misunderstood the directions on how to. I believe I've corrected the error. Thanks again.--TriPredRavage 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DIL help. please

Hi, Angr.

I created the Dictionary of the Irish Language article after findig it on the hotlist of missing articles, and then then spending about ten minutes "researching" it via Google. I know nothing of the subject. You, on the other hand, are a genuine expert. Please feel free to completely re-write that sucker as you see fit. I don't think my stub is wrong, exactly, but I suspect it is grossly inadequate. -Arch dude 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

O'Neill Sea Odyssey

Hello: The images from the above-referenced page were deleted but there is no explanation. The tags were correct. Also, please provide a more objective statement why this article is judged as an advertisement. Thank you. I hope all is well. Dhaifley 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Goidelic language in Wales

Not many citations on the Goidelic page if any. Well "New history of Ireland" Vol 1, Page 408. O'Croinin. Taramoon 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but as WP:RS says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and saying that Goidelic languages are spoken in Wales is a pretty exceptional claim. —Angr 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Galic

Awesome, finally some one who knows as much Galic as me. I particularly appreciated your 2005 edits of Gaelic. 129.2.175.110 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carole E. Handler

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carole E. Handler, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole E. Handler. Thank you. --Edcolins 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Licensing policy

Responded... though I'm sure it's not a very satisfying response! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pasiene

Hello! I just logged in to find that you have deleted the image to the article Pasiene on the 26 January 2007. The image was published here: www.ludza.lv, the site of the Ludza district. I got the permission from the site administrator Aleksandrs Ivanovs, who let me publish the image if I wrote the reference to their site - www.ludza.lv. As I am not a regular english Wikipedia user, I just couldn't find the right tag for this case. Could you please restore the image in the appropriate form? --Zummis 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, I'm afraid. Wikipedia does not use copyrighted images just because they're given permission to. Wikipedia content has to be free content, which means it has to be free for others to use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —Angr 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RD/L query

Hi Angr. You've been very helpful with my German language questions on the Ref Desk in the past. I posed another one a few days ago that you haven't replied to - there have been a few good answers, but I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at it as well. The query is here. It's just the bit about translating the sentence that I'm interested in. Thanks very much. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the response. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Guardian Council

Hi there. I contacted you once before about image copyright tagging, and I have another question. All photographic images on the page linked to above have been uploaded using the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, ie Image:Guardian Council 10.jpg, but I think that this may be incorrect and the source posted no longer exists. Iranian law states copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation; and copyright in other images lasts for the life of the creator plus 30 years. There is nothing that states that the tag used is correct, so what to do? Also, the user thinks I am specifically targeting him as I have political motivations, which I don't, so a third party may be helpful to diffuse any sticky situation. I simply look through fair use, and if I see that a user uploads many images under wrong licenses or with "fair use" that is incorrect, I look through that users upload log to look for other possible violations. If you can help, thanks in advance. --Bob 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If the source is unavailable and the license can't be verified, cross them both out and tag the image {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}}. Several of this user's other photos are taken from news services, which means they violate counterexample #5 at WP:FU, as I have mentioned at Image talk:Rafsanjani with Haniyah.jpg. —Angr 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I said thanks in advance, but thanks again! --Bob 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No consensus?

Angr, given your constant opposition to every aspect of that proposal, I think you're hardly in a position to neutrally declare it a failure. Most posts (save yours) were generally supportive. I was on the verge of calling it a guideline (as you yourself had suggested), but I didn't know if a formal vote was necessary or whether I was the one who should have been making that call since I had proposed it in the first place.

This issue will not go away. We cannot let admins, especially those with an explicitly stated bias against any fair use pics whatsoever, define replaceability. We need it defined, or there is merely tyranny, RFCs and people leaving.

You yourself indicated that you were mostly comfortable with it although you wanted to eliminate the middle category. I made some changes to it that you never commented on, so I assume you were OK with them.

You're out of line here. Way out of line. Daniel Case 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You could ask for a second opinion at the admins' noticeboard, but looking over the talk page I didn't see consensus emerging and I didn't see myself as the only person who had serious problems with the stated definition of replaceability. And when it's been almost a month since anyone has said anything at all, I think it's fair to call a proposal dead in the water. —Angr 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Already did ask for a second opinion, under Kat's statement. Plus a message on Jimbo's page. If that draws no response (frankly, I'd like people to move beyond hashing the whole free-use/fair-use debate and define replaceability so we can all move forward instead), then I'll consider it rejected as it currently stands, and start working on a new version.

What's your definition of replaceability, while we're at it? Give me something I can work with. Daniel Case 05:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, a nonfree image is nonreplaceable if it's copyrighted 2- or 3-dimensional art, a still from a TV show or movie, or a photograph showing a unique historical event. A nonfree image is not easily replaceable (but still not completely nonreplaceable!) if it's of a no longer existing structure (bridge, building, etc.), an extinct or endangered animal or plant species, of a deceased person, or a living person who is in prison, under house arrest, or known to be reclusive.

I think you should distinguish between two senses of replaceability: first, replaceable in that it is possible to create a free image as the possible subject of the picture exists. and replaceable in that a free image might be found to exist or the existing licensing might be changed but no new image could be created. I would like some recognition of that in any policy. Daniel Case 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(The fact that we didn't have a free image of Anna Nicole Smith until after her death shows that a person's death does not automatically make all copyrighted images of them nonreplaceable.)

It just shows me that we need more people looking through Flickr's photostreams on a regular basis. That picture could likely have been uploaded when she was alive.

Also, someone needs to make sure someone didn't just upload something they found somewhere else and stamp CC on it. There are many pics on Flickr that make use of the CC licensing that would never be permitted here or on the Commons. Daniel Case

A nonfree image is replaceable if it's of an existing structure, an animal or plant species that's not endangered in the part of the world where it's endemic, or a living person who regularly appears in public. The distinction you wanted to make between "A-list" stars and "B-list" stars where nonfree images of the "A-list" stars are considered "not generally replaceable" is not only too vague to be helpful (who decides which star is on which list?)

That's why I had specific criteria for those lists. I never used "A-list" and "B-list"; I simply tried to distinguish between celebs who may be easy to take pics of in public and celebs who aren't. If those two are identical in some people's mind, that's their problem. Daniel Case 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

but is totally belied by the fact that we have free images of a lot of the biggest names in show business (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, Madonna, Cher, Barbra Streisand).

Will we always be so lucky as to have someone like Alan Light, or PD photos from the U.S. military of celebrities, however? We cannot make that assumption. We need to assume a worst-case scenario.Daniel Case 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And three Commons members have recently applied for press credentials from Wikinews, which will make it even easier for them to get access to stars so they can photograph them. —Angr 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is, of course, a welcome development. Daniel Case 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Replaceability of fair-use images is now apparently policy

And now I must undergo discussion in order to change it.. ?! See here. I don't see a reason to have some more detailed discussion, but the page there is pretty far out in space. What links here on it shows that it's being used to influence discussions.. so that needs to be fixed ASAP.--Gmaxwell 07:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now apparently policy? Since when? —Angr 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been a useful excuse to use to revert all changes (yes again) to it and demand discussion which goes unanswered? --Gmaxwell 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pas un pipe

Are you sure it's fair use? I was under the impression that since it's more than 75 years old, it's public domain. Ah well, I'll just find some other image :) >Radiant< 10:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Template improved now :) >Radiant< 12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcata Bike Library

Working on getting license fixed. Please do not remove. The image process is very difficult, as I don't understand all the mumbo jumbo. Give me more time. Thanks.--al95521 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards face image

Do you think this image should be fair use? If not then please help me get it removed. Image:EdwardFace.jpgWikidudeman ^(talk) 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What help do you need? The image is tagged for deletion on February 20th, and the "reason" given to dispute the tag is wholly without merit and will certainly not convince the closing admin. —Angr 08:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I didn't know about the time limit or anything like that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting the John Edward image back on it's page. If it isn't fair use shouldn't it be removed?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It can stay there till it gets deleted. Replaceable fair-use images are the least problematic legally, because for them, it's not U.S. copyright law that's the problem, only Wikipedia policy. So it's not like we're going to get in trouble if it stays on the page a few days more. —Angr 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually fair use.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I hadn't noticed it was from a news agency, not a publicity photo. But still it's not worth edit-warring over. —Angr 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Park Avenue

Angr- you deleted my picture of 3 Park Avenue without any notice. Since I took the picture, there will be no copyright issues. If I failed to indicate my ownership in the upload process, I am happy to correct. Notice of your intention to delete would have been both courteous and efficient, since I now need to find the pic and upload again. ButtonwoodTree 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The image was tagged for deletion from the moment you uploaded it because you selected "Fair use image of an existing building" from the drop-down menu. Wikipedians' own images are not considered "fair use" (which refers to a legal entitlement to use copyrighted material without permission under restricted conditions). I'll undelete the image for you, but do please select an appropriate license for it from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. Thanks! —Angr 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bostick

Was the Adam Bostick image tagged for fair use? If so, for how long? SERSeanCrane 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the moment it was uploaded. You selected "Fair use image of a living person" from the dropdown menu, which automatically tags the image for deletion, since Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use image of living people in most circumstances. —Angr 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo - Proper License

Proper license added to photo, releasing into public domain -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn. I own the photo. Thank you for administrating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain1050 (talk • contribs)

Underspecification

Hello,

I recently posted a link to an external source about scope underspecification, to the Underspecification entry. It was removed and I don't understand why: the website I linked to was not a personal site (and was certainly not my own, as was implied in the note on why it was removed), and the underspecification programme available there is not commercial; it was developed within the CHORUS project at Saarland University, it is free, and will be of interest to anyone working on scope underspecification.

I would have expected that this would be exactly the kind of external link the wikipedia entry would benefit from. Please let me know why it was removed, or simply restore the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shievak (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia's guidelines for external links are at WP:EL. The link seemed inappropriate to me because external links to Wikipedia articles are usually places where the reader can learn more about the topic, rather than places where they can download software that somehow relates to the topic of the article (unless of course the article itself is about that software). And while the site itself may be noncommercial, it seemed to me to contain "objectionable amounts of advertising" (to quote from WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided). Finally, considering the link is related to semantic underspecification in natural language processing, I didn't think it was particularly relevant in an article about phonological underspecification in general linguistic theory. —Angr 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletedtext

Hi. I saw that you removed #Pages_in_category from the CAT:CSD link in MediaWiki:Deletedtext. While I see your point, it's mildly annoying to have to scroll. What would you think of adding shortcuts not only to that anchor in CAT:CSD, but also in the attack and nonsense categories? I think something like this would address all concerns and make a lot of people more efficient:

• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (all, attack, nonsense)

Thanks. --BigDT 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Angr 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious Inquiry

Could you repost the nude pic of yourself on obesity. It was such a turn on for me. 144.126.208.61 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's flattering, but no. —Angr 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

German car number plates (again problem with spam links)

Unfortunately the spam links [1] starting to appear again on this article. Could you please block the article for nonregistered users again? Thanks -Toshi 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfree image "Madchen hoch"

Image:Madchen hoch.jpg I tagged this image a few days ago and I wanted to ask you on when it might be deleted. Is there a 7 day time limit or something? Wikipedia seems to be ambiguous on when the images will be deleted once they are tagged as copyrighted. Could you delete it?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The minimum period for discussion on WP:PUI is two weeks. It might go faster if you tagged with {{imagevio}} instead, although WP:CP has several days' backlog too. —Angr 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Underspecification Again

Thank you very much for your response. I included the link because the page provides a tool that is a unique resource for anyone working on scope underspecification. The content of the website is directly and symmetrically relevant to the topic of underspecification, and the fact that links are usually not to software doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to not include it.

As for advertising: the only parts of the website that seem even slightly advertise-ish are the title of the software and part of one sentence describing what the new version does. In my opinion, this is clearly not "excessive advertising", and it would be a misreading of the Wikipedia guidelines to claim otherwise. Further, the website doesn't promote, link to, or even mention anything commercial, which many sites linked to by Wikipedia can't claim. But am I missing something? Are you seeing something that I am not?

Finally, there's the matter of the topic: It is true that if the article is really about phonological underspecification then the link is not relevant. But that is not what this article is about: phonological underspecification was given as an example, but as the title suggests, the article is to cover underspecification in general. Thus, ideally, it would include information about a variety of areas. Hopefully a link about semantic underspecification will encourage others to edit the article to include a wider variety of information, and decrease the chance of readers being misled about the scope of the article by the dominance of the phonology example.

Please let me know what you think, and thank you for looking out for the well-being of these articles! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.223.200.252 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Image:Theocracyband.jpg

I was hoping you could take a look at this picture. You deleted it originally because it was replaceable. E tac (talk · contribs) was re-uploaded it as a free use image due in part from a post on a forum. Due to the page history, is this still a fair use image, or is the forum post enough for the image to stay as free use? Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan Rosenberg's photo

We have lots of images that violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. The fact that Melissa Gilbert's image is also a violation doesn't mean that Alan Rosenberg's image is allowed to be one. Deleted. —Angr 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Now go be an über-efficient deleter and DELETE hers as well. --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Already tagged. —Angr 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 22:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

HateDaVinciCode.jpg... Or Whatever it is

I uploaded this image when I first got onto Wikipedia, but I don't think it really still needs to be around. I did edit it (that is, added the graffitti to the Mona Lisa's face), but it doesn't really need to stay, unless someone else cares about it. --Major Despard 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your question

   (Please reply on Talk:Austro-Bavarian.) — Sebastian 07:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSCF047254.JPG

Hello! I am sorry, but i am not very familiar with the copyright-tag things with images. I saw my userpicture was merged to be deleted because of missing copyright tags. should everything be okay now? I am just pretty new to wikipedia, and dont know these things well enough yet.
File:DSCF047254.JPG
Ilyushka88 15:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! Ilyushka88 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandi DuBowski photo

I saw that you deleted the Sandi DuBowski photo, but I couldn't find an explanation listed. What was the reason for the deletion? Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Flickr source listed it as licensed for noncommercial use only, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. —Angr 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Why is this rule? Is Wikipedia a commercial source? — Emiellaiendiay 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia itself, but part of Wikipedia's goal is to be made up of free content that others can reuse, including for commercial purposes. It's the same reason why we don't use images "by permission" -- the permission wouldn't extend to others wanting to reuse the content. —Angr 20:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was image in Grande Prairie article removed?

I've noticed that you deleted the image of Cache Creek, but you didn't provide an explanation as why you did it. If it was a form of copyright violation, or if it didn't comply with Wikipedia copyright policies - PLEASE say so. I know you didn't do it just because you didn't like it or whatever, but I'd like to know a valid reason why (that article is on my watchlist - I grew up in that city). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NorthernFire (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the image was deleted for being a replaceable fair-use image. In particular, the image showed a landscape, for which it is not necessary (and therefore against Wikipedia policy) to use a copyrighted image, because someone could take a similar picture and release it under a free license. —Angr 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Shin, Skin

Are these West Germanic and Scandanavian equivalents of the same root (respectively)?Cameron Nedland 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're related, but not as closely as, say, shirt and skirt. Shin is from OE scinu from Proto-Germanic *skinō, while skin is from ON skinn from PGmc *skinþan. Both are apparently ultimately from the PIE verb root *sek- "to cut", but the nouns were different already in PGmc. —Angr 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was another shirt/skirt deal. Thanks a lot.Cameron Nedland 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PIE and Polish

The PIE article says that PIE had three genders, but Polish has five, can languages develop more genders over time?Cameron Nedland 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish doesn't have five genders! It only has three: masculine, feminine, and neuter. That said, although I've never heard of a language developing more genders over time, I can't think of any particular reason why it shouldn't be possible. —Angr 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure there is much agreement about how many genders there are in Polish. This (see also the table if you scroll down) suggests 4 in singular and 2 in plural. This gives 5 if you want to insist that a word must not change gender from singular to plural. However, if you also include how the counting words (one and two) are inflected you can at least see 6 categories in the table or perhaps 15! Probably the reference desk is a better place for this discussion. Stefán 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys.Cameron Nedland 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Amanayé language edits

Thanks for cleaning up Amanayé language. I had started some other language articles (stubs, reallly), and fixed them using your example. Paxsimius 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up-

-about my image. Man, that really gets my goat. Anyway, I've contacted them, I eagerly await their reply.PiccoloNamek 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Russell-Chamberlain

I notice you deleted the pic of Russell and Chamberlain. Could you explain your reasoning? (Please respond here) Quadzilla99 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was uploaded marked as a "fair use image of a living person", which automatically tags an image for speedy deletion. It had no other license, nor did it have any information regarding who owns the copyright to it. (The only "source" information was [2], which doesn't say anything.) If you can provide complete source information and a fair use rationale, I'll undelete it. —Angr 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It had a source but in an unorthodox format; the source was in one the fair use rational headers (number three I believe). It was used not to illustrate a living person but to show the two of them playing during their careers and illustrate their rivalry. The layout was probably confusing but the picture was poor quality compared to the original and it would be near impossible to find a a fair use pic of the two of them playing each other. You can still see the deleted file with your admin tools right? Do you see what I'm saying? Please don't think I'm pestering or second guessing you, I'm just trying to make the Russell and Chamberlain articles better. Quadzilla99 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops I misread your post (getting sleepy) I'll try to find the original source tomorrow. Quadzilla99 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, if it's from a news agency we probably can't use it at all (per counterexample 5) unless this particular photograph is iconic in itself (iconic along the lines of the little naked crying girl in the Vietnam War or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). —Angr 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that settles that then. Quadzilla99 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ɹ vs. r

Hi, wondering why you saw fit to revert my pedantry on English phonology. /r/ might always be understood to denote /ɹ/ in English phonology, but there could be confusion for foreign-language speakers, esp. when content is taken from the page into less clear-cut contexts. Thanks, EdC 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's highly unlikely. And what about the accents of Scottish English where /r/ really is /r/? —Angr 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've put an explanatory note in, because I don't think it's that obvious; would you mind checking it for correctness? –EdC 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaeilge question

Hi Angr :-) As your Gaeilge is better than mine, I could use some help with a question from another editor:

"do you know correct pronunciations for "Taranis" and "Eochaid Ollathair?" I know "Taranis" should be "Tha-ra-nish," but is the "i" pronounced "eye" or "ee," and on which syllable does the emphasis come? As for "Eochaid Ollathair," (spelling varies, of course), I believe the second part would be something like "oh-la-heer," but the first? I'm at a loss."

I would assume that, as with other words, emphasis of all of these is on the first syllable, and the "i" is "ih" or "ee", depending. But I'm not sure about Eochaid. With my shreds of Gàidhlig I can hazard an Ulster pronunciation, but thought better of possibly giving the wrong answer. Tapadh Leibh, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Taranis isn't a Goidelic name anyway (I guess it's Gaulish), so it doesn't have an Irish pronunciation. Eochaid was something like [ˈeoxɨðʲ] in Old Irish and would be spelled Eochaidh and pronounced [ˈoxiː] in Modern Irish. —Angr 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's about what I thought, but it's good to have confirmation. :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what would be the IPA for Ollathair? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's really regarded as a compound meaning "all-father", then Old Irish [ˈɔɫ̪ˌaθɨɾʲ], Modern [ˈɔɫ̪ˌahəɾʲ]. —Angr 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done a lot of research on that one in particular, but it is used in that sense, at least by some. Thanks again. I really have to get more up to speed with IPA. Tapadh Leibh, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally asked Kathryn this question. I'm told by someone who has more knowledge than I on the subject that "All-Father" is a misapplication, and that it is much more properly translated as "Great Father." He illustrated this with the comment that no one speaks of "Alexander the All." Of course, since we're all four meeting online, who knows what anyone's actual credentials are...?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Alexander the Great is called Alastar Mór in Irish, not Oll-Alastar, that's not much of an argument. However, my Irish dictionary confirms what your friend says: oll- really means "great; huge, vast, immense" rather than "all". Other words with this prefix include ollchathair "megalopolis" ("great city"), olldealbh "colossus" ("enormous statue"), ollmhargadh "supermarket" ("great market"), ollscoil "university" ("great school"), and olltáirgeadh "gross product" ("great product"). —Angr 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Psst, does your email link work?

Could be there's _important_ mail in your mailbox, aside from my unimportant 'hello' I mean...   ;-)   Shenme 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam? Must've have been the inclusion of the URLs. Hmm, text, URLs, text, yep, looks spammy to me too! You've been busy here - 10 times as many edits in the same timespan. A man with a mission, but did you know what you were getting into? Off to bed for me... Shenme 08:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An Ghaeilge go heisiach ar shuíomhanna idirlín

Can you tell me if this is something that should be deleted and why if it is? Or if it should be translated, would you be interested in translating it or would you know someone who would be? Thanks! -Yupik 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted. It's a personal opinion piece about the use of Irish on websites. —Angr 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks! And thanks for the quick reply :) -Yupik 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Censu Tabone

Regarding your decision to delete the official portrait of Censu Tabone, 4th President of Malta, which is a promo photo copyrighted by the Department of Information (Malta), could you explain your reasoning?

Sure. It's a copyrighted promo photo, as you said. Wikipedia fair use criterion 1 prohibits the use of copyrighted images where a free equivalent could be made, and per counterexample 8 that includes images of living people. —Angr 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Schwa indogermanicum

Hello again, Angr. You created this page as a redirect to Schwa about a year or two ago, but wouldn't it be better off as a redirect to Laryngeal theory? My reasoning is that it applies more to the process of changing phonology etc. of PIE, pertaining to Laryngeal theory, than the Schwa itself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Did Laryngeal theory exist yet at the time? —Angr 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. Anyway, I went ahead and changed the redirect. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

L.I.E.

Hi I have replaced the Category:Films with a pedophile theme for L.I.E. Some people use the term pederasty, some pedophilia for child molestation of pubertal/post-pubertal children, though of course pedophilia itself (being sexually attracted to children) is not a crime. In the UK, the term paedophilia is universally accepted as the word that describes sexual attraction to children, including younger teenagers. Pederasty is seldom used in the UK, though pederast is sometimes used as a term of abuse. On Wikipedia we therefore must accept both terms. Tony 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

Have you even seen the movie? There is no child molestation or indeed any sexual contact between the two main characters; and even if there had been, the teenager in question was 16 (i.e. above the age of consent in the UK and several U.S. states). The movie has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia by anyone's definition. —Angr 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the movie, though haven't watched it since we started arguing!

Some of the reviews of the movie that describes Big John as a pedophile

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

The article has pederast in the first line. That definitey means sexual activity, so I'm not sure you can make your assertions. There doesn't need to be explicit sexual activity on screen in a movie with a pederastic or pedophile theme. Because of the legal position, any such activity is frequently underplayed in movies that have a pedophile theme. Tony 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

Pederasty and pedophilia are not the same, and don't even have much overlap, so please don't lump them together. The character of Big John can be described as a pederast because he has had sex with boys under 18 (though not with the main character Howie). Pedophilia refers specifically to an attraction to pre-pubescent children, and there is no indication that he's attracted to pre-pubescent boys. The fact that some reviewers misuse the word "pedophile" doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean we have to follow suit. The article is already appropriately in Category:Pederastic film, which is a distinct category from Category:Films with a pedophile theme for very good reasons. —Angr 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable overlap. I don't think you can ignore scholarly research (I have read many texts), nor respected reviewers, nor respected journalists, nor compilers of dictionaries. This subject has been debated on and off on Wikipedia and I suggest you read the exchanges if you haven't already on various talk pages. 81.178.209.205 12:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

I've read lots about it. Nothing I've read convinces me that L.I.E. is any way pedophilia-related, except under an alarmist and unscientific definition of "pedophilia" that has no business in an encyclopedia. —Angr 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've watched the movie again and listened to the director's and star's full length commentaries. I have overhauled the article as you will see. We can put aside our differences over pederasty/pedophilia as there are two clear instances showing that Big John is attracted to pre-pubescent boys. I've also confirmed that the boys were 15 not 16 and so were under age. The movie takes place in late spring and Howie's birthday is in July. Gary's age is never mentioned in the film though the commentaries say he is 15.Tony 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

Wonderful. You've completely ruined the article with your utterly nonneutral original research. It used to be an encyclopedic description of a film; now it's a moral panic screed against "pedophilia". I can't bear to look at it any more, so I'm taking it off my watchlist. —Angr 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

A continuation of User talk:Angr/Archive 22#Image:Theocracyband.jpg; After some flipping of copyright tags, the uploader removed the notice again. I asked them kindly at Image talk:Theocracyband.jpg to replace the tag (since it shouldn't have been removed). He did point out a picture I uploaded prior to my knowledge about replaceability of images and I had that speedy deleted. After a day or so, I asked again on the user talk page at User talk:E tac#Image:Theocracyband.jpg if they would replace the tag; however, it looks like the user hasn't returned in a couple of days. Since the user believes I am WP:STALKing, I wanted to hear your advice if I should replace the tag or not. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:STALK: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." So don't worry about accusations of wikistalking. I've replaced the tags on the image and have it on my watchlist now. —Angr 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To slash or not to slash?

Yo, Angry Dude!! Shhh, don't tell anyone this but I've been rather hard at work (offline) on an extension of Sesotho language.

I have a question about IPA pronunciation guides (I'm including them for every example I give and every mention of phonemes and formatives, and there's currently 1011 of them): what's the difference between slashes and square brackets? Everything I've seen suggests that the pronunciation guide for the language name in the language infobox should be enclosed in square brackets, not the slashes that are currently used. Also, if the IPA is isolated, is it acceptable to simply not delimit it?

One more question: what's the proper IPA symbol for the Sesotho superclose vowels i and u (they're higher than the English examples given in the table in the article - see Phuthi language for a clue)? Huh? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Strictly, the slashes are for phonemic representation and the brackets for phonetic representation. It's usually best to use phonetic representation for languages other than English because you can't expect the reader to know all the allophones of the various phonemes. For the distinction between "ordinary" close /i u/ and "superclose" /i u/ I'd either use [i u] for the ordinary ones and [i̝ u̝] for the "superclose" ones, or [i̞ u̞] for the ordinary ones and [i u] for the "superclose" ones. What's standard in the literature? —Angr 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Can I ask for advise. If somebody uploads an image without source of a deceased politician should I remove it from an article since it has no source or should I look for a source and look for a relevant fair use stamp for it? (I don't like fair use much personally.) I ask because of the actions of Mhstebbi (talk · contribs · logs). He never replies to anything on his talk page, consistently removed free images and replaces them with unsourced images but when he puts unsourced images on articles about deceased people and we have no free equivalent I am unsure whether I should remove the image. Thanks Stefán 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When he replaces free images with unfree ones, revert him immediately and tag the images as {{imagevio}}. When he adds unsourced images of dead people to pages that don't already have an image, you may either (1) look for a source yourself, or (2) tag the image with {{subst:nsd}}. In the latter case, don't remove the image from the article, as it's possible he or someone else will add a source within the 7-day grace period, and OrphanBot will comment out the image from the article after four days anyway. But do keep the image on your watchlist to make sure no one removes the tag without adding an adequate source. Whether your course of action is (1) or (2) is entirely up to you, but if you do (1) then you're also at least partially responsible for writing a fair-use rationale. —Angr 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)