User talk:Evertype/Archive 4

ga.wikipedia adminship

Hi Michael - there's been some discussion going on at meta:Requests_for_permissions#Gaeilge_Wiki_Admin_problem and at ga: as regards adminship. We would really appreciate your comments on the matter. It has also been suggested that you be made an admin - let me know if you are still interested in this. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That Tiro bloke

I was wondering if you knew whether Tironian notes have been/are going to be proposed for encoding? I would presume Plane 1 would be most appropriate. Nicholas 08:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I proposed the TIRONIAN SIGN ET, because people use it. Evertype 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I found that just after I posted here (it was shown on the german version). I presume the rest of them would be necessary for transcribing and digitising classical/mediaeval works though, would they not? I am not a scholar on the subject so don't really know. If Unicode is to be used for digitising the human literary corpus, perhaps it should include all well-known forms of shorthand too? At least it'll give us something to put in all those empty Planes :-)

Also, while I have your ear, could you release a version of Mshtakan which does not have the black star glyph at U+2605 ? A lot of websites use ★ and ☆ to do an iTunes-like star rating, but in 10.4 ATSUI's font fall-back mechanism selects the black star from Mshtakan (it didn't do so in 10.3 if the font was installed) but the white star from one of the CJK fonts. The stars are not the same size (as you may see from this comment) with Mshtakan's black star being particularly small and hard to distinguish at 12-16pt. Whilst doing this you could also combine the four styles into a suitcase, which I much prefer to loose .ttf files. Thanks Nicholas 10:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will file a bug on this. Evertype 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Unicode Cló Gaelach

Hey Michael, do you know if there is such a thing as a Unicode-compliant Cló Gaelach font? By this I mean one where the c with the buailte is at "ċ" (U+010B), and the B with the buailte is at "Ḃ" (U+1E02), etc. Up to now, the only Cló Gaelach fonts I've seen always have all of the characters crammed into the Basic Latin and Latin-1 space, the way things had to be back in the old days of 10 years ago. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See my website. Evertype 14:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A warning

You have been found to have violated our policy WP:BEANS. Your punishment will be decided later by the supreme bean council. Stefán Ingi 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though :), I have found to my cost previously that if you take a wikipedia page as an example for anything, somebody will more than likely come and change it. Therefore, it might be good practice to add it to your watchlist. It just goes to show that in many respects, Wikipedia is a giant game of Nomic. Anyway, keep up the good work which I see you have been doing. Stefán Ingi 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ISO 15924

Just made a request for Ipaa to be added to ISO 15924, but seems I could have come here first :-). See [1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in watching Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing_systems and commenting Template talk:User cyr and Category_talk:User cyr. Hopefully all script articles will include the codes soon, as ISO 639-3 is included in language articles. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation authors

Check out the {{{coauthors}}} parameter to {{cite web}}. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're looking at Vai script, could you check whether I should have used {{IPA}} and replace it with {{unicode}} if necessary? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

MÍKMAQ

PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE FIRST LIKE A REASONABLE PERSON. IF YOU READ THE COMMENTS YOU KNOW YOU NEVERE WOULD HAVE WON CONSENT SO YOU DID IT ANYWAY AND THAT IS WRONG! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't shout. There is no reason to shout. Francis-Smith orthography uses the acute, and the apostrophe is a fall-back. No one objects to the use of the acute. Evertype 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a big print deadline today and cannot review the talk page, but I think that where we are going is to change it all as per your proposal. My concern with wikipedia is logic and constancy and hierarchy, so I feel strongly we should pick the orthography that is closest to what the well meaning english speakers are using and implement that orthography wiki-wide.WayeMason 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I run the Halifax Pop Explosion which starts in 12 days so I am a wee bit overwhelmed right now. I think sensitive European folk have by and large moved to the Mikmaq spelling, MicMac is considered gauche by anyone under the age of say 40/45... personally I think it makes no sense to go from one baseless anglizised spelling to another, but I really think that is what is going on in the general public WayeMason 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ConScript Unicode Registry

Hi, are you still involved with the ConScript Unicode Registry? If yes, could you tell me how one would propose a a new script to it? I have a proposal written up for the D'ni language and numerals, for which I am currently trying to get community support. If succesful I'd like to include it in the CUR. -- Jordi·✆ 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't the usual way to contact me ;-) Anyway, is there a font? Is it free of copyright? What do you mean by community support? Is it controversial? In general, the CSUR is "low priority" though. -- Evertype·✆ 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Just wanted to thank you for your supportive vote and proposal regarding the article IPA2. Wish you all the best. -DrMoslehi 22 September 2006, 03:49 (UTC+3:30)

Admin help on ga

A Mhíchíl, a chara, could you move ga:Caitleachas to ga:Eaglais Chaitliceach Rómhánach, deleting the POV screed that is currently under the latter name? Go raibh maith agat! Angr 07:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ga:Caitliceachas. Jab déanta. -- Evertype·✆ 10:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq language

In response to your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, I looked into the disagreement at Mi'kmaq language. It seems Codex Sinaiticus is being obstinate, though I think he's mistaken.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about the more appropriate title, but since Codex has objected it'll probably best to take it to requested moves to establish a better consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

I thank you for some badly needed support. But there's much more for the Printing page before I'd call it splendid, like a discussion of the 17-19th c. from someone with real knowledge. I may be a science bibliographer but this part of the universe is a little to the side of my main interest. DGG 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Otherwise splendid" I said, didn't I? These things are relative. -- Evertype·✆ 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous vote, at Talk:Cork (material), was about moving

Cork (material) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

There was no consensus to do that. This vote, at Talk:Cork, is about moving

Cork (disambiguation) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

--Serge 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

your vandalism accusations

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%27Ko&diff=86751306&oldid=86709479 -- I do not see how my edits relate to WP:VANDAL. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your actions have been hostile and unfriendly. You split the article without cause, and you have shown no willingness to have it be any way but your way. I proposed that the article should be re-merged and requested that you obtain the consensus of other editors before splitting. You have simply ignored all of this, and have provocatively continued despite the fact that you know that this is disputed. I consider this to be vandalism. It is certainly bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO dispute

I have offered a solution on the talkpage. Please read it and offer your input. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Assamese script merging with Bengali script

I have reverted your sudden merging of Assamese script and Bengali script. This should rather be discussed, before the merging can take place. The issue came up earlier, and it was rejected. Chaipau 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was discussed months ago without opposition on the Assamese script page. I spent quite some time on the merger. It is disappointing that this should be undone. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

N'Ko and ISO

I have posted another response on Talk:ISO 15924, I will discuss N'Ko next. I apologize for not being active enough to provide more of a third opinoin. Hang in there! There is usually a mutually benefiting solution to every problem on Wikipedia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind withdrawing your nomination of N'Ko alphabet for deletion? It's frowned upon to use the deletion process for something other than deletions, and if we get this nomination out of the way, it will be easier to discuss a merge. I'd be willing to close the nomination as Speedy keep if you do so. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

German Cyrillic alphabet

Michael, as you know a lot about scripts I would like to point you to German Cyrillic alphabet. It is now marked as a possible hoax. Do you know more? I myself never heard about it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not on a first-name basis, Mr Conradi. With regard to your question, I have asked the person who posted the article. -- Evertype·✆ 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is we? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We, you and I, are not on a first-name basis, Mr Conradi. (There is no other way of interpreting this sentence in the context of this discussion.) -- Evertype·✆ 16:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I created that article to remove a too-long section from Cyrillic alphabet. It was originally entered by an anonymous editor. —Michael Z. 2006-11-11 22:00 Z

Tobias Conradi

Hi, I sought to neutralise the Conradi edits on ISO 15924 by citing the line, this then hopefully gives you a better-founded basis for opposing the POV - any idea why this user seeks to keep establishing the alleged criticism? MarkThomas 13:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark, for those edits. I followed with a set of short edits, each one dealing with a particular element of text which does not be in the article, whether for inappropriateness or simply error of fact. I hope that the page can rest quietly now. I really do. -- Evertype·✆ 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on Mr. Conradi's talk page telling him that I expect to restrict himself to 1RR on the article in question. In the meantime, I have the following advice for you: First, stay calm. I know it can feel like the end of the world when someone puts erroneous or biased information in an article for a time, but it generally isn't. Second, don't violate 3RR yourself (you didn't this time, but you came close). In most cases, the easiest thing to do is find a neutral editor to check out the edits and help weigh in on the dispute. In cases where one side is egregiously wrong, this will tend to put the issues in stark relief very quickly. It looks to me like that's already happening in this article. Filing an article RFC asking other editors to come take a look is one good way to have this happen more quickly. Good luck, Nandesuka 15:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nandesuka. It is sometimes hard to stay calm in situations like this. I do not want to violate 3RR, of course. Nor do I want conflict, which is why I have tried to address things on the talk pages, though it is hard to do that when being called a liar and a suppressor over and over again. I will bear the RFC option in mind. Perhaps we shall have recourse to it in regard to the problems we are having with N'Ko. -- Evertype·✆ 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I empathise Evertype, I suffer the same problem sometimes, but after quite a few brushes myself have learned it's often best to be as laid back as possible and try to remain calm. After looking at all the edits this user is doing, and his compative attitude to you, I think he is trying to get a rise out of you and it may be best not to respond to his kicks in comment pages. Ditto if he responds here - we should focus on the actual articles not the jibes. Have you looked at Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons? A little humor to relax things. By the way, I admire your expertise in your field, and your work and dedication to putting useful facts across on Wikipedia in a cogent manner. MarkThomas 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, Mark. I do my best, and I do have a sense of humour. Unfortunately we still have a right mess regarding N'Ko, and until that is resolved the article will not get expert attention. -- Evertype·✆ 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, after having tried to carefully read that page and it's disputes, which are quite arcane to someone not deeply knowledgeable on the subject (although somewhat relaxing for me as a non-expert since I can treat it as an exercise in WP objectivity studies), it reads to me like a classic case on Wikipedia of expertise (yours) versus clueless editing, but this is of course very typical of Wikipedia - where experts spend endless time (often eventually giving up or at least getting deeply exasperated, as has happened to me several times) seeking to defend well written material against utter nonsense. Have you checked out the new Citizendium project?1 I believe this is trying to refine the process to permit more expertise to survive. Of course, one reason for caring what happens here is the high prominence Google gives to WP pages but it seems to me that won't last for ever. Also of course a lot of universities and so on actively block Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the frustrations you have seem an inevitable artefact of the process.

What do you see as basically wrong with the current (protected) N'Ko article? MarkThomas 12:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it's the only article we need. New content in the N'Ko alphabet and N'Ko language should be merged into it, and those made into redirects. -- Evertype·✆ 10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO dispute

Hello, Michael! First of all, I apologize for the delay with the response—I've been away for the past few days. Do you still wish my help with Tobias or is the situation under control now? I can certainly at least talk to him to see what his take is/was on all this. Please let me know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Belated help

Hello Evertype! I apologize for not contacting you earlier (it has been an "interesting" 30 days...) but now that I've returned, I'm sifting through my talkpage, and I regret not being able to be active in the wikiproject for the past month. Is there anything left that is still disputed, or any general issues which need my attention still? I'm terribly sorry I haven't contacted you sooner. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

assistance re Arvanitic alphabet

Evertype, could you take a look at the page Arvanitic alphabet. which has been proposed for deletion. I'm just a bystander, but certainly WP has many such tables.DGG 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked. I edited. Didn't find a comment from you on the Talk page, though. Why not? -- Evertype·✆ 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think I knew enough. (smile)DGG 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DRV

All the procedures were followed in this TfD debate - so I don't see what a DRV is going to achieve. As I've stated there, I didn;t know that WP:HV existed until today, hence I didn't contact you. There was plenty of warning of the debate and deletion everywhere - the TfD tag on the template, MartinBotIII's edits to image pages (which must have showed up on someone's watchlist) and now OrphanBot is duly informing the owners of all the images left tagless - everything is working as planned (bar all the messages on my talk page, and the DRV!). Can I suggest that you read my replies to the other messages on my page, and on the DRV, and consider withdrawing it? In any case, you should read the DRV instructions, including when and why it can be used. Martinp23 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You've said several times that "procedures were followed" which is all fine except that people are scrambling to save images from deletion because of this. Your responses here and elsewhere do not help people fix this mess. I thought that the DRV might help to do so. -- Evertype·✆ 12:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said "procedures were followed" becuase this simple fact removes the basis of any DRV, which is to detewrmine if procedures were followed and consensus correctly interpreted. OrphanBot can't/won't delete the images, and it'll be at least a week from when OrphanBot tags them to when they might be deleted. Martinp23 12:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter to me that procedures were followed. The action has caused a huge problem for people who now have to scramble to save things from deletion. I have accordingly filed a DRV to undo the deletion of the Template in order to allow people time to deal with this. This is hardly unreasonable. You can insist that you were right, but you nevertheless caused a problem. It would be easier if you helped to fix the problem rather than just saying that your action didn't cause hardship. Thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were to go an undelete the template right now, it wouldn't appear on any image description pages. This is because it has already been removed from them (ie - the {{coatofarms}} bit was taken out of every image page). The undeletion of the template won't help, and the process of DRV is probably wasting the time of editors who could be fixing the images (insofar as they can - nothing can be taken for granted with licenses, and adding what one thinks it falls under is not the right thing to do, because knowing our luck the license will end up being wrong!). Martinp23 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq language

Hey, I thought I'd let you know Codex Sinaiticus is at it again at Mi'kmaq language. I tried to remove the contentious definitions he gave, but he replaced them and removed the fact tags. He still won't provide a reference, and is of course being uncivil. I can't find verification of his words on the internet, have you learned anything more about it that would be useful?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's finally given a reference to an actual dictionay to back up his claims, after three reverts and numerous insults. No page numbers, but I'll assume good faith and believe his definitions are actually in the book he cites.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a MedCab case regarding Mi'kmaq language. If you are still interested, I believe that the editorial differences regarding this topic can be resolved at Talk:Mi'kmaq language. Your contribution would be appreciated. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not wikilinking where I should have. "MedCab" is the Mediation Cabal, an informal means by which editors may request outside assistance in resolving issues. To that end, I'm just another editor; I'm not even an admin! My input at Mi'kmaq language is in no way binding. However, since I haven't been involved previously, I'm hoping that I can help everyone share their views and reach an accomodation acceptable to everyone. With the interest that has been displayed on all sides, I'm certain that a really high-quality article can be built once the sticky issues are put to rest. Serpent's Choice 11:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Having seen your name as a participant on WP:WPW, I wondered whether you might like to have a look at the Chinese romanization method Gwoyeu Romatzyh, which I've been trying to bring up to scratch (GA/A/FA?). Any comments appreciated. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoyo

I don't know, you hear more and more people using it nowadays. I have found a ref: http://www.dublinpeople.com/interact/dublindictionary/s-z.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saebhiar (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

You should spend more time in the northside then! :-) Anyhoo, I don't mind either way. Let's leave it out for the time being. Saebhiar Adishatz 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 1 1 1 3 GA 2 3 3 3 11 B 17 82 96 191 1 4 391 C 15 74 87 214 4 10 404 Start 5 138 360 1,021 2 29 1,555 Stub 3 22 459 31 515 List 2 12 13 411 5 443 Category 340 340 Disambig 1 1 10 12 File 28 28 Portal 2 2 Project 6 6 Redirect 9 29 59 186 283 Template 2 3 11 408 424 NA 32 1 2 1 36 Other 1 14 15 Assessed 43 323 646 2,373 996 7 80 4,468 Unassessed 1 1 57 59 Total 43 323 647 2,374 996 7 137 4,527 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 13,676 Ω = 4.75
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh up for GA status

If you have time, please take a look over this article. User:ndsg has been trying to improve it and we'd appreciate an expert like yourself checking over it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode Latin

Template:Unicode Latin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ✉Hello World! 06:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cruithne

Hi,

I see you speak Gaelic, which I don't. But wouldn't the th in Cruithne be silent, since it's at the end of the syllable? Also, do you know if there's no accent on the u? (Please answer on my talk page.) Thanks, kwami 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not assuming an accent, just want to make sure. And that's why I'm asking you. Don't always have time for more careful study, but will continue to change things that are obviously wrong. kwami 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish orthography states that the th in Cruithne should be silent. Of course, there's a lot of dialectical variation. Could you correct the orthog. page if it's wrong? kwami 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Embossing

Technically, would the photo that you have placed in the article actually be an example of debossing? (I don't know too much about embossing so I figure I should double check first.) Thanks! Panchitaville^talk 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

Hello. Previously we tried listing all of the various romanized forms:

• Iōtō
• Iwōtō
• Iwoto
• Ioto
• Iwō Tō
• Iō Tō
• Io To
• Iwo To

It is confusing and inconsistent. We need a single consistent spelling. And the official press release is that: いおうとう (Iwōtō). Redirects exists for all of the alternatives, as per Wikipedia policy. Bendono 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The English-language press has used the spellings Iwo Jima and Iwo To. I think that those two and whatever you want for romanization should suffice for users of the encyclopaedia. THe text as it stands "[Also romanized Iwo To]" is satisfactory. -- Evertype·✆ 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget Iwoto. Look at the talk page for links. Neither publications respect vowel length; it is against their editorial guidelines. That is not true here on Wikipedia. Bendono 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are, I fear, confusing spelling-forms and romanization. You're making this much more complicated than it need be!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_21#Category:Armigers

I'm a bit disappointed at this deletion. In particular since it happened without anyone letting me know (since I created the category) that it was up for deletion I had no opportunity to comment, or to invite the WikiProject on Heraldry to comment. In fact the category was populated only by people whose arms were actually shown on their page, so there is no question of unverifiability. Populating the category took some time and effort, too. And being armigerous is not the same as being noble. It does not seem to me that there should not be a category for this. -- Evertype·✆ 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted unanimously. It is not even close to being a defining characteristic. As for the arms on the pages, we don't categorise people by the type of image on their pages. I don't think there is any chance that you would have persuaded any of the users who take an interest in categories that this was a valid one. Indeed if you had contributed, you might well have provoked more of them to argue for deletion, to ensure it went through (only so many people will bother to contribute to a discussion that looks like it will produce a unanimous result). We can have categories for every possible aspect of every person, and this category was not even close to falling into the marginal band. Honbicot 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there not categories for various kinds of honours that people may hold? Being armigerous is not so common these days, but I don't see how the category was in any way harmful or inappropriate. The arguments given by the people who unanimously voted to delete this category did not, in fact, give me much reason to believe that they really understood what bearing arms means. -- Evertype·✆ 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of Ireland

While I see that you put your bitterly opposed mark on the page under one section, you may not have noticed that further down the page (actually the next section) there is a vote going on about this renaming topic and you might want to make your feelings known there too otherwise you most likely will not be counted. Cheers ww2censor 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lydian

It's funny how things go on Wikipedia.

I was recently involved in an argument about a thing called İQTElif and i cited your opinion on the subject to support my proposal. See User talk:Amire80/İQTElif. The article was deleted, although i've got a hunch that its creator may contest the deletion yet again.

Today i cleaned up some articles about writing systems and ran into Lydian script. It was sub-stub quality, so i merged/redirected it to Lydian language. But i was delighted to see you in the page's history. It's great to have someone like you on Wikipedia.

It would be nice if you could make Lydian script into a proper article, if you think that it deserves one. I count on your judgment about this subject.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kernewek Kemmyn

Thank you for the edits in this section, however, can you do two things please:

1) Include the full name of the work and author at the end of the article in the reference section. 2) Rewrite your additions in more "fluid" English.

By the way, I don't see what the problem with something being the "largest variety" - there is nothing particularly odd about that. --MacRusgail 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a wee bit curt in this message. I apologise. I have gone over the KK article, and tried to tidy it up a bit. I realise there are criticisms of KK, as with all forms of revived Cornish, but have tried to make it as neutral as possible while mentioning these criticisms. The Cornish fight each other too much, and I'm not really partisan on the issue. --MacRusgail 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New editor

Hi, thanks for your message. I have replied on my talk page, and left a message on his talk page with a couple of policy links which may help him to contribute more positively. DuncanHill 12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IPA2 Notability

Hi,

I put a {{Notability}} template on IPA2 and explained the problems on the talk page.

Your input is welcome. Please don't remove the template until there is consensus about it on the talk page.

If notability cannot be proved, i will, unfortunately, have to propose this article for deletion. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish articles assessments

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

• The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?

• The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?

• Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?

• As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.

• Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly problematic commons image upload

It would be nice if you could respond to comments at commons:User talk:Evertype -- AnonMoos 08:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the specifics of uploading images to Wikimedia Commons are quite different from the specifics of uploading images to Wikipedia, in certain respects. See further there. AnonMoos 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Unicodeconsortium bookv5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Unicodeconsortium bookv5.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)