User talk:Mahagaja

Spieprzaj dziadu! deleted

Hello, I don't know if I should be writing to you but I've just noticed that the page I created Spieprzaj dziadu! has been deleted and a note was not even left on my talk page to notify me of the AFD debate. Is there a chance of postponing the decision so I can have my say on the subject? After all, the page was considered good enough for a DYK when it was created. I'm seriously disappointed by the way this has been handled... not even telling the creator of the page that there is an AFD on it is quite disrespectful (though I realise it was not you who instigated it). Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's very rare that the editor who starts an article is notified on his talk page of an AFD discussion. It's usually taken for granted that he would keep the article on his watchlist and so would see the AFD tag being put on. It was, after all, discussed for a week before being deleted. +Angr 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says here under Notifying substantial contributors to the article; "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". That would seem to be quite clear and not an indication of 'rarity'. And this course of action has a reason: as it happens, I didn't notice the AFD tag appear, so now all my hard work has been got rid of. For the record, three of the voters for 'delete' had talked about their opinions together before the vote, so an opposing group was there ready, making it seem like a lot of 'random' editors were against the article. They weren't. My involvement in the AFD could have countered their arguments I feel. Malick78 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Derrybeg storm

You ask "is anyone going to remember this in 5 years?". Not if you can help it! But the Met Service reference states that this was likely a 1 in 100 year event; people also readily recalled the last such flood in 1880, slightly more than 5 years ago. Has this happened in, say, Dublin it would hardly merit a mention in the article - but in the case of small villages events such as these are recalled for generations. Context is everything. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Angr. I was recently asked what I thought about the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms for gay in different languages, and after reading through the AfD discussion, I thought I'd ask you for your input on this. I know that I don't have near the amount of experience at WP that you do, so I was hoping you wouldn't mind adding your thoughts on it. I did see it mentioned that DRV was a possibility, but I'd rather ask here first - there well may be something I'm not aware of. Thanks, and Cheers — Ched :  ?  02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, although more people wanted it deleted than kept, AFD isn't a vote but an attempt to reach consensus, and reading through the comments it was clear to me that no consensus was reached. +Angr 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Angr. Happy Wikipedia Birthday. I posted the above article to DRV here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

slender nn in Muskerry

Angr, the article Irish phonology shows the last sound in "Éirinn" in Muskerry Irish as /ɲ/. I though that sound was for ny as in Spanish. Shouldn't it be /ŋˈ/? Rather than amend the page, I thought I would run it past you. Djwebb1969 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of /ɲ/, as of all IPA characters, varies slightly from language to language. In the Irish phonology article and WP:IPA for Irish, that symbol is used for the "slender ng" sound (traditional ŋ'), which is described as palatal in many sources and which by definition means a nasal at the same place of articulation as /c ɟ ç/ (traditional k' g' x'). +Angr 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Hey, Mahagaja. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- I dream of horses (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Class act

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		When an administrator shows the class and integrity to support the community over their own beliefs, it should be well noted that these are the types of administrators that make our project a great place. My respect and admiration go out to you Angr, top-notch and class act. — Ched :  ?  07:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly not sure how to take this "award". "The community" supported WP:STEAM, which is supposed to be humor, over WP:CONSENSUS, which is supposed to be policy. But beating my head against a brick wall was giving me a headache, so I gave up. +Angr 08:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Angr, it was honestly meant as an appreciation of your integrity. It's not meant to be some sort of snide or snarky thing. You closed an AfD as keep, a DRV was opened, and when you saw that consensus was the opposite of the "keep", you actually deleted the article yourself. I thought that was cool. You acted in a purely professional manner, I just wanted to acknowledge your integrity. Nothing more, nothing less. We need "good" admins that work for the best of the community, I see you as one of those "good admins" - and I wanted to say so. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't close it as keep, I closed it as no consensus to delete, which is a very different thing. And I still believe there was no consensus to delete. I ultimately deleted it because it was clear that the DRV was going to result in its getting deleted one way or the other, so I decided to short-circuit the drama by just deleting it myself. But I still feel that the deletion was in violation of policy, so I don't feel particularly full of integrity for having done so. +Angr 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion reviews to overturn keeps?

This is about the DRV for "List of words for gay in different languages". I agree with the way you closed the original AFD. There may have been more "votes" for delete, but most of them were along the lines of "me too, IDONTLIKEIT". It was only towards the end of the AFD when people were bringing forth actual arguments about whether or not the page was salveageable. Furthermore, almost all the "delete" votes occured within 24 hours of the nomination, which looks pretty sketchy to me.

But since when do we have deletion reviews when an article gets kept? After all, they're called "deletion reviews" for a reason. When an article gets kept or closed no consensus it's bad form to renominate it for deletion; it should be given some time for people to improve it. Allowing keeps to be overturned is simply a sneaky way around this rule, bringing double jeopardy to the AFD process and discouraging people from improving marginal articles. Sneaky, because there is no notice of the DRV posted on the AFD discussion, and it's over within two days instead of seven. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DRV has always included cases where the article was kept, not just cases where it was deleted. +Angr 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Does DRV ever do other DRVs? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose there's a first time for everything, but at this point I'd say it's unlikely to change the final result. +Angr 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hi! This is Troubled Traveler. I've been looking at the talkpage discussions and would like to suggest some changes. When can we talk? TroubledTraveler (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)