User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 61

suggested renaming: close/open -> high/low, plosive -> stop

Hello Angr. I made a suggestion concerning renaming articles about particular phonemes so that "close/open" -> "high/low", "plosive" -> "stop", e.g. close front unrounded vowel -> high front unrounded vowel and voiced bilabial plosive -> voiced bilabial stop. I put the suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonetics, because I'm not sure whether there's a better place for discussions of this sort that refer to multiple articles. I gave a lot of reasons why these changes should be made; IMO the arguments are fairly compelling (but of course I might think that way :-)). Please take a look and comment, thanks. Benwing (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Euler

“ BTW, I got all the way through secondary school, 4 years of undergraduate study, and 7 years of (post)graduate study with a Ph.D. at the end without ever encountering the name Euler either spoken or in print. ”

Amazing. For decades I've heard his name just about every day from everybody. He was one of the most prolific writers ever. Well over two centuries after his death they're still working toward getting all of his papers published. Check out the list of topics named after Leonhard Euler. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pantsing

Angr, I love your story about the pantsing of a guy harrassing a woman on the Autobahn in the 'Legality of Killing Osama Bin Laden' thread. I was going to mention that OBL was wearing loose pants at the time, so rather than killing him...... but deemed it inappropriate considering the topic of the thread and level of tension we all seem to have got ourselves at. I hope you don't mind me posting it here :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OBL was in his own home (his own bedroom even, wasn't it?), so pantsing wouldn't have been as embarrassing. And the guy on the S-Bahn (not Autobahn) hadn't actually done anything yet; it was a preventive rather than retaliatory pantsing. —Angr (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

BarkingMoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be worth keeping an eye on as a possible LC sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about LC to detect his MO unless he starts ranting about Arabs on the RD or its talk page. —Angr (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll just see. He's giving us hints on WP:ANI. He also had a sock earlier today called "Laughing Donkey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BarkingMoon doesn't look anything like LC to me. Spells differently, has different interests, takes the time to make a user page, makes far more constructive edits in a row than LC would ever make, hasn't touched the ref desks, etc. Red Act (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right. He just bears watching at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Cool. Good research and double-checking! As soon as Webcitation.org is back up, I'll add archive links to the footnotes. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick additional note: For English-language Wikipedia, when quoting a source in a different language, we need to provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, per WP:NOENG. If you could do that, that would be great. Thanks again. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't quote the source, I merely cited it. WP:NOENG says "When citing [a non-English] source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page" (emphasis added). Are you "formally" requesting me to translate the relevant passage? Even someone who doesn't know German can find the word "Semipalatinsk" on the page easily enough and put 2 and 2 together. —Angr (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking — that's always the responsible thing to do given the nuances of Wiki policies and guidelines. My thought is that if I don't speak a language, I myself would never try to guess what it says for anything like an encyclopedia. Putting two and two together — drawing an original-research conclusion — can backfire, and while something may seem obvious to me, it's the seemingly obvious things that have backfired the worst. The Internet has translation engines that could do a sentence without much difficulty. The other possibility is to find an English-language source.

I agree with you that because of the disputed nature of the material that two reliable citations are better than one in this case. I'd be glad to help look for an English-language cite if you want — collaboration is the name of the game. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Finding another source would be best, not only for the sake of finding one in English, but for the sake of finding one that isn't a gossip rag. —Angr (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mie Mie image

Thanks for alerting me to the issue with the Mie Mie image--it was my first to Wikipedia. Would you be so kind as to check over what I have now and let me know if it meets the guidelines? I've been uploading quite a few images since then under the rationale I now have listed there, so if that one doesn't make code either, it's probably better that I figure it out now rather than later. Another good sample would be Htay Kywe (actually more representative, as it lacks the "historical signif" tag). Cheers, Khazar (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationales look OK; the rule against nonfree images of living people is generally waived in the case of prisoners. The sources could be more informative, though. You've linked directly to the images themselves, but according to the image use policy, "A good source for an image from an internet location is to point to the HTML page that contains the image ( http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=3097 ) and not directly to the image itself: ( http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_021028-N-3228G-006.jpg )." Generally, the more info about the pics the better. Is it known who took them, or where they were first published? Is it known who owns the copyright? The more info available about where the pics come from, the less likely they are to be deleted. —Angr (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about that. Thanks again for the guidance, it's a big help. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Azaria

It's A-zare-e-a. Zare ryhming with stare. I've never heard it pronounced A-zar-ia. I don't get the IPA so could you put the right one on please? Thanks. Gran² 20:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Diabetes in dogs and cats for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diabetes in dogs and cats is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes in dogs and cats until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. France3470 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mahagaja. You have new messages at Talk:Moin.
Message added 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The original orthography of the 1588 Welsh Bible

Hi, I've left you (and everybody else) a messege here. Please reply there. Thanks :-) —Júda Ronén 2011/6/7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumpelstilzchen (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do-Support Intro

Hi Angr,

I've reverted back the change you'd made to the do-support article. Please read the comment I've left there in the talk section. I'm not super satisfied with the wording of that section either, but the content is important and needs to stay. If you have some recommendations for rewording but retaining the information please hit me up. I have to say the main thing I'd struggled with in writing that intro is figuring out how to say "this article is wrong" while retaining it for informational purposes. As stated in the talk page, my instinct would be to delete the do-support article (and the related 'pro-verb' and 'dummy verb' articles which are little more than supporting concepts attempting to justify do-support.

The problem is that these are in fact commonly held ideas (at least for the past 40 years or so) but are limited only to describing English and even then almost entirely limited to the ESL/ESOL/TESOL industry. They're all absolutely incorrect in every way from a language and linguistics standpoint yet are seemingly logical (as long as you don't dig into them or try to make them work all the time) ideas from a purely observational view at first glance. There are quite a few things like this that have become prominent in the language education field and very quickly have made it into publications (and then been copied by other publishers, giving the impression of established linguistic principles) that are totally incorrect. The problem is that these beliefs are widespread, and teaching approaches have been shaped around them. The industry as a whole is wrestling with how to rectify this (because say from a publisher standpoint, a revised edition would have to say the previous editions got something totally wrong which is a bit of a kick in the pride academically).

I think it's important to have articles on these ideas, but certainly when something is incorrect (yet still needs to be mentioned), there must be an approach in play for dealing with that. Any ideas?

And BTW, thanks for your diligence in patrolling ling articles. There is so much bad information and opinion put forth in the wikipedia linguistics and language and grammar articles that it leaves what should be a great platform for such information a completely untrustworthy mishmash. We need more people like you who upon having pause over added content seek to halt any potential damage. I look forward to hearing back from you, Thanks Drew.ward (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Do-support. —Angr (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics

Hi. I just wanted to mention that this line addressed to you was actually a question prompted by your last line on that thread (notice the inversion and the question mark). I think you might have misunderstood it as a statement, conclusion, pointer or remark, because there wasn't an answer. I was not sure about what I asked, but I regard the absence of a disagreement as an affirmative answer, and the case is now over. Cheers. --Theurgist (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't noticed it was a question, but yes, I'd say Hungarian does have diacritical s and y. —Angr (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing rationale?

Hi Angr, I'd appreciate it if you could please add a rationale to your close of Talk:Anže Kopitar#Rename/move article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was clear enough that there was no consensus. —Angr (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. From my understanding, "not moved"="consensus against move", whereas "no consensus to move"="no consensus; default to status quo". I thought that the RM was the latter, but your original close suggested the former, which is why I had asked for a rationale. In any case, thanks for adjusting your close, it's appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think to the extent there was any consensus at all, it was against the move. "No consensus to move" should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning "default to status quo". —Angr (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, although fewer in number, the support votes were backed by policy and evidence, whereas the oppose votes were along the lines of "it's his real name", so the decision should have been "default to status quo" (but then I would say that, being a supporter). In any case, I'm probably too involved in the issue to see it 100% clearly and I'm sure that you didn't just count the votes in order to find the consensus (or lack thereof). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It was partially the number of votes and partially that fact that nothing in Wikipedia policy says that diacritics are prohibited or that Wikipedia must slavishly follow the usage of other English-language publications that routinely drop diacritics from foreign names. —Angr (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly my interpretation of COMMONNAME differs from yours, but I'm going to drop the issue now. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

grammar review: Gay bishops

Hi. Thanks for reviewing my edit on the above article. I'm still convinced that the edited sentence improves the article while the existing grammar is incorrect. I've stated the case in the article talk page and hope you'll find favour in my conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neargonad (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your comment, which you wrote at the top of an old thread on the talk, to a new thread and responded there. See Talk:Gay bishops#Grammar in lead paragraph. —Angr (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see now. I stand corrected. Thank you. Neargonad (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

You impress me. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but why specifically? Because I know the difference between hale and hail? —Angr (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why?

The IPA letter "ɔ" should be used on Wikipedia. Why aren't we using it? Also, I pronounce cold with "ɔ" instead of "oʊ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.101.137 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We use /ɔ/ for the vowel of words like caught and thought. Cold has the vowel of coat and goat, or at least an allophone of it (in some accents, particularly in England, the "goat" vowel is markedly different before tautosyllabic [l] than in other environments). But /kɔld/ is a representation of called, not cold. —Angr (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Variant IPA

Thanks for your input, now I finally know what that annoying ′ is and what it's called! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian closures

Thanks for that; what do you think about DBachmann's idea to have those titles as permanently protected redirects to Old Hungarian? -- Evertype·✆ 12:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Are they phrases people might be looking for, and would they find the information they were looking for at Old Hungarian? Angr (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since some of the Hungarians are flogging terms like Szekely-Hungarian Rovas and Rovas Script Family and Rovásírás and Rovas Atlas and Hungarian scripts perhaps it would be good to point them and lock. I don't know about the spurious Khazar and Carpathian Basin junk. By the way see also Category:Rovas_Scripts. -- Evertype·✆ 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment The Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas are related to the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas, albeit they are individual scripts. In the previous day, the articles of the Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas were deleted - and then the materials about these can be qualified as "junk" or "spurious". These attributes show personal emotion and not related to the scientific facts. In the Hungarian science, there is not any debate about these scripts are different from the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas. However, their existence is an argument that there is a script family of the three Rovas scripts, and therefore the term "Rovas" is a category name. In such a way, its use is necessary. However, the erroneous term "Old Hungarian" is forced instead of the "Szekely-Hungarian Rovas" by Evertype. This is the reason why the articles of the Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas were deleted. And now, he is going to lock this terms. -Rovasscript (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Rovas" is not an English word, and is meaningless to English speakers. By the way, there is nothing "erroneous" about the term "Old Hungarian" which is the traditional name of the script in our language. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's your problem. You may call it what you like in your language. We must be given the dignity to call it what we like in our language. It is remarkable that you have not understood this common element of cultural respect. -- Evertype·✆ 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy

What is the policy about new users setting up articles for deletion? User:German Music only 3 edits is nothing other than trying to delete the Norman Langen article. Do you think it's possible that he is a sockpuppet? The fact that this user is familiar with how to delete articles is a clue that this is a possibility. Kingjeff (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no specific policy about it. If there's a specific user you think this is a sockpuppet of, you can bring it up at WP:SPI. Otherwise, you can tag their signatures on the AFD with {{spa}}. Angr (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD closes

Hi Angr. You're not formatting your closes correctly when you close AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 25). The names of the articles should be inside the deletion box, not outside. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought I heard once it would break something if you put them inside the box. Maybe that's been fixed now. Angr (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Winge

Sorry about the AfD. It really did look more like a dictionary definition when I nominated it. Didn't mean to waste anyones time. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Better safe than sorry, anyway. :-) Angr (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrative intervention

Hello, Angr. Would you mind reviewing this matter? Here: Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#Evidence section. The section keeps getting changed for what I and others feel are invalid reasons, and we need administrative intervention. If reported at the Noticeboard, it seems they will only view it as a content issue...even if it keeps happening. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but being an admin doesn't give me powers of mediation, especially in an article I know nothing about. Angr (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I apologize for asking. I only did so because we need some type of administrative intervention and administrators are sometimes willing to help after being asked on their talk page. I can understand why you do not want to get involved, however. Thank you for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAhelp2col

Template:IPAhelp2col has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DePiep (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In what sense can a spelling be "official"?

Dear Angr, In editing the first footnote in the article on Frans Van Coetsem, you deleted the short sentence "This is the official spelling of his name.", justifying this deletion by asking "in what sense 'official'?". Apparently you are not aware of what happens when a baby is born in Belgium. Within a couple of days after the baby’s birth, his name must be entered in the civil registry. The civil registry then issues a birth certificate, and the name on this is the official name of the baby (including the spelling of that name), which will be used in all official documents pertaining to him or her throughout his or her life (and even after it). In Belgium this official name can only be changed through a legal process of some complexity. In non-official documents an individual can of course use a different name, or a different spelling of his name, when he wants to, except to commit fraud, naturally. That is why I did not talk of Van Coetsem's "legal" name, which might have suggested Van Coetsem often used an illegal version of his name. He didn't, of course. But he published a lot in The Netherlands, which is not bound by the niceties of Belgian law, and where the system alternating Van and van described in the footnote is the normal one. — Conclusion: I suggest restoring my sentence "This is the official spelling of his name." or, if you prefer something longer: "This is his name as it appears on his birth certificate." (Which I haven't seen; but, being the son of the town clerk (i.e., the keeper of the civil register) of the village where I lived when I was young, I know the system. ) Consequently I'd also replace the following "Van Coetsem" by "he". — I'll wait a couple of days for your reaction before I actually do this, in case you suggest another formulation. Polla ta deina (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it's even particularly relevant to the article: people reading the article care about his work as a linguist, not about the "official" capitalization of his Van. But if you want to include it you should at least find a source for it. I don't know about Belgium, but I know that in France, surnames are often written in all caps in official contexts anyway, so before making claims about the official spelling of his name, it might be good to double-check that his birth certificate doesn't simply say "VAN COETSEM Frans Camille Cornelis" or something. But in all events, keep it brief, because this isn't an issue readers are going to want to get bogged down in, not even in a footnote. Angr (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Angr,

(1) I have checked with the Geraardsbergen civil registry, who not only confirmed what I was 99+% sure of but who also sent me a copy of Frans Van Coetsem's birth certificate; and so the beginning of my first footnote now reads: "This is the official spelling of his name, i.e., as it appears in the civil registry of his native Geraardsbergen and hence on his birth certificate." That will explain the meaning of the collocation which your words 'in what sense "official"' suggest you found incomprehensible. (2) The Geraardsbergen civil registry is not just a but the primary source of his name, and it is accessible to the general public, which makes my reference to the Geraardsbergen civil registry a reference in the Wikipedia sense, and the most reliable one imaginable at that. (3) There are linguists who care about the correct spelling of his name, in particular bibliographers and those who consult bibliographies. I used to work as a bibliographer for the MLA, and I remember my utter frustration when the Belgian linguist Félicien De Tollenaere published an article in Belgium (as F. De Tollenaere, naturally) and another in The Netherlands (as F. de Tollenaere, equally naturally), and the editors of the MLA Bibliography failed to heed my warning about this, so that his name appeared twice in the Index, pages apart, as "De Tollenaere, F." and as "Tollenaere, F. de". No linguist consulting the MLA bibliography will be pleased with that sort of idiocy. Admittedly the discussion of the original version of Van Coetsem's name will not prevent such idiocies in future, but it might warn readers of Wikipedia against it. (4) Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia meant for linguists, but for the general public. It is to be assumed that any article can, and will, be consulted by members of the general public. In our Western culture, many people care deeply about the "correct" spelling of a person's name, and identify a "correct" spelling with the original spelling. They will be pleased to know the "correct" spelling. (The fact that personally I don't agree with the identification of "correct" and "original" is the reason I used "original" rather than "correct". ) (5) Your argument of what they do in France cannot stand up to scrutiny. One, as a linguist you know that one should never use characteristics from language A to suggest language B has those characteristics. Likewise, what they do in France is irrelevant to what they do in Belgium. Having copied out by hand indexes to civil registers myself, I know last names are not entered in capitals in Belgian civil registers, one of the reasons being that, if they were, you could not distinguish caps from lower case letters. Two, some official documents (in Belgium as well as, apparently, in France) may write last names in capitals for clarity or emphasis, but Belgian official documents in which precise identification of a person is required certainly do not. Polla ta deina (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Constructive Input Respectfully Requested

Dear Angr, Thank you for the post at "Peggy Adler". I have been working closely with editor JimfBeak and have followed every recommendation he has made. He has known all along that bxzooo is Peggy Adler and never suggested that someone else should submit the article about me. I already have family members at Wikipedia (Dad, Irving Adler; brother, Stephen L. Adler; son-in-law, Adam Lapidus; and cousin, Peter Coyote, to name a few) It was suggested to me that Peter Coyote's format was the one to follow. And so that's what I did. And I carefully researched a link to every entry. In fact, if you look at most people's bios, at ISBN, all it does is link to the Wikipedia page for ISBN -- not to the Library of Congress. Each of those entries should include the LOC# -- which will link to the exact entry for the copyrighted piece at LOC. Anyway, please,please tell me what I can do to make my article comform to Wikipedia's standards? Hope you get this message,as I cold not find any place to send it to you an e-mail, as I could with JimfBeak. Respectfully, Pegggy Adler: user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article is not the formating of the references, it's (1) that you don't seem to meet the notability guideline at WP:Notability (people), and (2) that you've written an article about yourself, which while not absolutely prohibited is strongly discouraged (see WP:Autobiography). It looks like Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) was helping you out while the article was still in your userspace, where these issues aren't so important, but now that you've moved it into article space, they are. Re e-mail: if you expand the "Toolbox" link on the left of the page, you will find a link "E-mail this user". Nevertheless, it's best to discuss this on-wiki (either on my user talk page, your user talk page, or the article's talk page) for maximum transparency. E-mail should be reserved for private information you don't want to put up in a public place like a Wikipedia talk page. Angr (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Again, Would it help if I eliminate some of the itemizations, since they are already referenced to in the text? This might make it look less like a "resume". All I'd have to do is move the primary reference notations to the text area and then delete the entry at author/illustrator; investigator/researcher; civic/community activities; or the like. As for notability -- I guess I don't understand why I'm not. Would it help if someone else submits my data rather than me? Though it would still come out the same, regardless, since it's all true. Best Wishes, Peggy: user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems your claim to notability can come from being an author and illustrator of children's books or from being the police commissioner of Clinton, Connecticut. For the first, look at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals and for the second, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. As far as I can tell (and I admit I haven't really researched the sources, so I may be wrong), the article does not establish that in your capacity as an author/illustrator you are "regarded as an important figure or [are] widely cited by peers or successors", that you are "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", that you have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", or that your work "has won significant critical attention". Nor does it established that in your capacity as police commissioner you "have received significant press coverage", and note that "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". If you want your article to establish your notability, it has to show not only that you have done all this work, but also that other people have commented significantly on the work you've done, in writing, in publications that you have no control over. Ideally, the page would be written by someone who doesn't know you in real life, but who is familiar with your work. Angr (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Morning Angr, Based upon your comments, I have deleted most of the line item entries and put all of those items' reference points into the text. So now the article should no longer look like a resume. The only major list that remains is that with the titles of books and magazine articles that provide proof that "other people have commented significantly on the work (I've) done, in writing, in publications that (I) have no control over." As for my work as a Police Commssioner. We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline. We oversee the entire department and it's budget -- one of the biggest in our town. Last year our police chief of the last 19 years retired after being appointed by President Obama to become the United States Marshal for the State of Connecticut. As a Police Commissioner, I, along with my four colleagues, interviewed and hired a new chief, from with in the ranks, and subsequently promoted members of the department to major, sgt. & corporal, respectively, to backfill newly vacated positions. We also interviewed and hired new coops and sent them to the Academy for training. They are now on the road here in Clinton. At amost 70 years of age, despite all of my work and civic activities, I have lived a very low profile life in a number of small towns here in Connecticut. Most of the people where I live (and have lived) 'til now, have had no idea of what I have done, because I do not normally promote my self. For years, most of my high profile energy was spent single parenting my two daughters, who are now adults, one with children of her own. And now, with Power of Attorney, I am looking after the affairs of my 98 year old Dad - along with all my other responsibilties. I hope that this addresses all of your concerns. Respectfully, Peggy Adler (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you have the time and inclination -- I respectfully request that you check out my sources. I think that they will establish notability. user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

NIV

If you think NIV is not a "reliable" or "scholarly" Bible translation, you have to discuss this in the article talk, per WP:BRD; I comment here only as a courtesy. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 22:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bliss and AAC

Would you care to add your considerable linguistic expertise to the discussion at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#rfc_246B203? -- Evertype·✆ 10:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mete in meet-meat merger

Did you ever find out whether, before the merger, mete was homophonous with meet or with meat? - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Köthen (Anhalt)

The name of this city is Köthen (Anhalt). (Anhalt) ist part of the official name. So I'm moving the article back to its real name ...Sicherlich ^Post 07:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)