User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 27

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

May-September 2010

Just to let you know...

This unblock request was put into the on-hold queue by User:Chaser while you investigate. I tried to go through the wall-o-evidence myself, but to no decision. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What can I say? "Sorry" doesn't come close. I shall apologise profusely to BoogaLouie when I get time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for List of English monarchs

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of English monarchs, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:DMC publicity photo.jpg

Many images of this subject exist, so the fair use rationale provided is invalid. The fact that no one has donated one yet doesn't give us the right to steal this one. As a result, I think the image should be deleted. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person interested in minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I am a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Angus

I'm sort of back, although changed. But where are you? Also thank you for your help with that technical matter. Unfortunately the people turned out to be a little weird and less than whom I thought they were, so I backed away, and felt like a fool. DinDraithou (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have been rather busy with what is laughably called "real life". Will be back soon! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms could benefit from your input. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DRV Schanze

Sure - give me the text in userspace. If I can work with one or more of the people who asked for deletion until they're happy with the article, I'll try again. He's got over 100 articles about him, hard to believe we can't write anything no matter what. --GRuban (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Could you amend your close to clarify why you disagreed with the majority who felt the article was acceptable (or needed only minor changes)? While you cited DGG's !vote, your close could lead one to believe you ignored the rest of the discussion. If you are going to close against the majority, especially in a DrV, it is generally a good idea to explain why you felt those !votes were wrong/outside of policy or otherwise mistaken. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You would be right if I were breaking new ground there, but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content is neither new nor obscure: BLP-governed articles are undeleted only when there is a consensus to do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to distract you from your argument, please do go on, but did you put the article somewhere in my userspace, as you offered? --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The last version before you moved it to mainspace is back at User:GRuban/Dell Schanze. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! When I get the energy, will try try again. I'm sure reasonable people can reach a reasonable compromise. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to _change_ your close, I'm asking you to explain it. Specifically why you disagreed with the majority and the issues they raised. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The really simple version is that while a majority is fine for normal stuff, it takes good arguments as well to get a bad BLP undeleted. There weren't any. "I can appreciate Wikipedia's need to not look like a tabloid..." should not be followed by any qualifications. Really. That one was egregious, but there were others which were only slightly better ("extremely notable"?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming there is a higher bar for this then there is. ". If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article." It doesn't say consensus needs to be magically stronger, merely that it must exist. _if_ the consensus was strong enough to restore any given article, it was strong enough for a BLP. Arguments that it A) meets WP:N, and B) isn't an attack page is all that one can really argue. Consensus, by !vote was clear, and by not even discussing the arguments for restoration you're pretty much stuck with accepting them as true on their face. It very much feels like a super vote where you've chosen to listen to the arguments that appeal to you while ignoring the others (literally not addressing them). Hobit (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to undelete it when the arguments are measured against the relevant - BLP - policy. In almost every other case at DRV there is no "bright line" policy like BLP to measure arguments against therefore the number of comments - your consensus by !vote - is what matters. Not with a BLP: apples and oranges. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So your reading of that policy trumps everyone elses? What BLP policy are you seeing that demands this article be deleted? Hobit (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and most of the folks there, including admins, felt that the article met these requirements. It's not a black-and-white call, it's a matter of opinion. And I don't see how your opinion should be able to trump others, nor how you can justify ignoring those other opinions (which again, you did by not mentioning in what way they were wrong/mistaken/ignoring policy). Do you truely think that those of us who read the article didn't consider the issues you raise and reject them? Hobit (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also less than convinced about the appropriateness of that close, Angus. I'm afraid I feel that your opinion would've been much better phrased as a !vote than as a close and I think it's unfortunate that you aren't listening more closely to Hobit.—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please restore File talk:MacBook Pro.jpg

This page was deleted under the criteria CSD G8. That image talk page is here to show that the image is part of WikiProject Apple Inc., and it adds it in a category. It was a mistake in my opinion to delete it. Please restore. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is absolutely no reason to tag Commons images with project tags: we have interwiki links for that kind of thing. I have seen no guidelinecruft saying that we should have talk pages for things that don't exist, which is exactly what CSD G8 says. So sorry but the answer has to be "no". Please find an alternative way to organise things. Most obviously interwikis and {{commonscat}} templatery should do the job just fine. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In case the above is rather cryptic, what I mean is that you can add to a project page a link that says Wikimedia Commons Apple images start at commons:Category:Apple Inc. and things like that. Much easier for everyone than trying to add talk pages to non-Wikipedia images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me

It appears I've made some ingenious, (not to mention devious), enemies at wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

In german wikipedia "Ironside" is translated "Eisenseite", which means, this person has one side, which is covered with iron/steel. the other "side" of this person is probably un- or less protected.

1. 1. 1. What meets better ? side = team ? side = character /mind ? thx --Smartbyte (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this King Edmund Ironside? If so, "side = character" is the answer: "as tough as iron". I think Eisenseite is a good literal translation. Found not just in English (where there are also Cromwell's Ironsides) but also in Old Norse, for example Björn Ironside. I would guess that the name of Legio VI Ferrata had the same sort of meaning, but I have never seen that said in writing. User:Ealdgyth or User:Cavila will likely know more ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd el Kader

Thanks! Interesting stuff... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

hey?

Sorry, but i need to know whether or not this image will be allowed under copyright. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.famouswhy.com/pictures/people/peter_ostrum.jpg&imgrefurl=http://people.famouswhy.com/peter_ostrum/&usg=__rXhZ8SpXcQiqhblgWx1OdxPF_Us=&h=187&w=250&sz=8&hl=en&start=0&sig2=z338IukgE8qWhVDHPnS7sw&tbnid=0O1bDB2DzQZaZM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=199&ei=oulJTOSMNcOC8ga2882rDg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpeter%2Bostrum%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D641%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=905&vpy=305&dur=1269&hovh=149&hovw=200&tx=101&ty=70&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0 If it is, respond to my talk page. DrStrangelove64 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BoogaLouie requesting unblock

Hello Angus. Please consider giving your opinion in the unblock discussion at User talk:BoogaLouie#Complex history. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether RevolutionExpert really was a sock of BoogaLouie. It is possible that RE and Booga used a common IP, but a number of editors use that IP, including at least one admin who has been working since 2003. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Óttar the Black

Ottir Iarla. DinDraithou (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Jean Hennessy Irish enough? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He would be considered more Irish than me or the Cotter family, whose very likely ancestor died in battle against the king of Scotland. The problem is that every real Irishman considers himself a male line descendant of ancient kings and various gods. Hennessy could shout Lugaid Mac Con! and everyone would cower respectfully. If you can't do that then you're nobody. DinDraithou (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Help: plwiki deleted image query

Sorry about the belated reply, I am on a slight wikibreak. I am not an admin on pl wiki, but I know some editors who are adimns or very active both there and on Commons. Try commons:User:Masur for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dzięki. Will give that a try. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Blacksmith bar World's Funniest Island 2009.jpg"

Hi Angus, This photo was deleted for an F7 violation, but I believe I'm mislabelling, rather than violating copyright. I understand that this image is being distributed with permission of the image's author, in publicity material (a reference for the article which it was used to illustrate). I am currently chasing this issue up with the the authority distributing the publicity material. Can you talk me through proper labelling, and tell me, if I have permission from the author of the image, whether or not it may be used?

Comedy nerd (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Óttar of Dublin

Hello again. We have a fine new article by User:Urselius and there are a few questions about Óttar's successors. I have done some research, which can be found in Talk:Óttar of Dublin. Would greatly appreciate your help. DinDraithou (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:14 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Category:Non-photographic Non-digital Biology-related Illustrations and Category:Non-photographic Biology-related Illustrations

Why are deleting images I put in these categories? They don't violate WP:CSD#F2. Should I just categorize them on Commons? --I'ḏ♥One 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Organizing these images on Commons is the preferable method, as many of the files that used to be in the category have been moved to Commons. If you need help organizing the files on Commons, drop me a line on my en.wiki talk and I'll see what I can do. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons images are already organised - they have a well-developed categorisation scheme. Using {{commonscat}} and similar interwiki links should be very much easier than trying to categorise the images again here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

First of all what is a coatrack(I can find only furniture definition) :)? I am not a native speaker. Second of all, I think your revert was uncalled for, since you restored several request for citations from 2009 for example. I tried to bring reliable media sources to explain the nature of the controversy. Also I am afraid that this section will be long if the article undergoes expansion, since that is very, very controversial person. To add:one of the main issues of controversy(which was stated by several top officials in Poland and in main Polish media)was that Steinbach represents expelled from their "homeland" while herself being a daughter of a Nazi Germany officer sent to Poland in occupational duty.Since this is one of the main points of controverse this should be stated in some way--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Alba

There is some confusion over this. If you search Alba, it seems erratic whether it goes to the old name for Scotland or redirects to Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. I think it may well be better if it goes straight to the disambigauation page, but it needs someone more expert than me to sort it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi Angus,

I am a Turkish speaker and I may help you if I can. As for Diyarbakır images, well that page you are referring is the page of the governor (Turkish: vali). But there is no notice about the copyright. Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)