User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 34

Hi, sorry to bother you...

Hello, sorry to bother you, but i just read what you had at the top of your user page and I am concerned about this mirror Wikipedia. Is there anyway to protect our articles, or anything one Wikipedian or all Wikipedians can do about this? Yeltsinfan (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally missed your message until now, sorry! What you can do is just keep an eye on articles that matter to you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{GFDL-self}} tag

Thanks Angr for reminding me. I had created these images and now put the {{GFDL-self}} tag. --burdak (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Battle for Bikini Bottom.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battle for Bikini Bottom.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. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For a great story about the vegan on your page. KC109 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I liked it too! Michael H 34 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks

Hi Angr, Thanks for the Khecarī mudrā page move, and for fixing all the double redirects—there is alot of unsung and unnoticed work that goes on here. ~ priyanath talk 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious...

...about your rationale for "no consensus" for a move at Talk:Religious violence in India/Archive 1 when four users were in favour and two opposed. Both sides seemed to have reasonable arguments. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 08:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me your question contains its own answer: four supporters/two opposers just isn't consensus, especially not when the opposers have reasonable arguments. If the opposers had had frivolous arguments, I might have closed as "move", but even then 4 to 2 is only 67% support at best, and 50% + 1 at worst. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Wouldn't that be 60% + 1 though?) — AjaxSmack 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That too, but 50% of 6 is 3, and 4 = 3 + 1. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

South Armagh

In refernce to your map of Gaeltacht areas in Ireland, I don't think South Armagh is a Gaeltacht area. What evidence do you have of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The map doesn't suggest South Armagh is a Gaeltacht area, as the Gaeltacht areas are marked in green, while South Armagh is still white. South Armagh is labeled on the map because some articles where the map is used, such as Irish phonology mention South Armagh, so readers may want to know where it is. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Is it for Republican reasons it is included, which has no relevance to language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's included for linguistic reasons. Although South Armagh is no longer an Irish-speaking area, linguistic research was done in the area in the early 20th century when it was still Irish-speaking, and some of the results of that research are reported in the article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise and interesting answers, keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Languages of United States

"Pointless change" - I wonder on what basis you make this statement after reverting my edits ? Majority of South Asians in United states would not be native speakers of Hindi/Urdu. the languages they speak are not dialects of Hindi and many have their scripts.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why the languages shouldn't be grouped together under a single heading like "Indian/South Asian languages", which doesn't mean anything. The section otherwise lists individual languages or, in the case of Chinese and Hindi/Urdu, groups of closely related languages. Also, there was no reason to push the South Asian languages ahead of Chinese. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainly County Antrim

Your map as well... there is a big area of the Falls Road Belfast city that speaks gaelic as well and they are crying out for recognition. Id have liked to have seen how big the area was when I came across your map but its not there. If I see a good reference to this I will drop it to you for your interest. I looked at www.irish.ie and they have failed to mention it either. I will find a news report about it and leave you a link soon. ThisMunkey (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Gaeltacht Quarter, Belfast http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/12924 ThisMunkey (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nasalized Vowels in English

Hi Angr. Firstly I wanted to say thanks to you for all your work around the linguisitics sections of wikipedia. I've noticed your articles and comments on quite a few topics and I've appreciated your approach.

I wanted to bring up a fragment of a conversation you were having on a discussion page a few years ago (here: Talk:Phonological_history_of_English_short_A), for the purpose of clarification and possible edification:

I believe [heŋ] for hang is characteristic of California English. There might be sources for it in that article. Certainly I remember User:Nohat, a Californian, reporting of his own speech that bank and bake have the same vowel, the only difference between them being the [ŋ]. —Angr 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to posit two things here--the second is more of a personal perceptual observation: (1) all vowels are nasalized before nasal consonants in English and (2) nasalized vowels are perceptually higher than their oral counterparts. Okay, so (2) may or may not be true (but I have noticed that formants of nasalized vowels in spectrograms I've seen are a little 'fuzzier' and harder to specify an exact frequency for) so I'm asking you: is 'hang' pronounced [heŋ], or [hæ̃ŋ] or do you like some other non-high front vowel? J Crow (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, (1) is absolutely true. (2) is a little weird; there is definitely a cross-linguistic tendency for vowels to raise before nasal consonants (shown in English by æ-tensing before nasals, by the pin-pen merger, and other facts), but there is also a tendency for nasalized vowels to lower, e.g. in French where in is [ɛ̃] and en is [ɑ̃]. So I'm not sure what to make of that. The point about hang is that in California English, /æ/ before /ŋ/ seems to have completely merged with /e/ (which as a tense vowel doesn't occur in that environment in "Standard" English). As I understand it, speakers feel that words like hang and bank actually have the /e/ phoneme, so that the only difference between pain and pang, both phonetically and phonemically, is the place of articulation of the final consonant, /n/ vs. /ŋ/. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Common and Early Modern

What you doing? Didn't you see the vote. It enshrines the right for all time to call Early Modern Irish Classical Gaelic! This is vandalism! ... Only kidding! The vote and move doesn't mean you have to merge the content into another article. I made that a condition of my vote, without which it wouldn't have been moved. Move it [the relevant content] back to Early Modern Irish if you like. I would do it, but it'd look like I was taking credit for your work. I'll create a stub on Classical Common Gaelic if you like, or maybe Gaelic Gaelic can be a dab page or something. I dunno. We've got a problem though. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The move does mean I have to merge the content into a different article, because the term "Classical Gaelic" isn't used to refer to Early Modern Irish, as I made clear on the talk page. I don't see why there's a problem or a need for a new article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bernard Reach for the Ground cover.jpg

Hi! I did my best with the rationale that's there. If it's not good enough so be it but perhaps somebody who's a bit better at these things could have a go at it.Cutler (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I now see the problem and accept that it doesn't qualify for fu.Cutler (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a vegan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ238DTgaEk

</br.> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMneVAyvE6Q

---

?Quotes about Fair Useage (fair to use I hope)

---

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

---

On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations.

Courts when deciding fair use cases, in addition to looking at context, amount and value of the use, also look to the standards and practices of the professional communities where the case comes from.

The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear.

A balanced copyright law provides an economic benefit to many high tech businesses such as search engines and software developers and Fair Use is also crucial to non-technology industries such as insurance, legal services, and newspaper publishers.[19] On September 12, 2007, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA),[19] a group representing companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Inc.,[20] Oracle Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo[21] and other high tech companies, released a study that found that Fair Use exceptions to US copyright laws were responsible for more than $4,500 Billion dollars in annual revenue for the United States economy representing one-sixth of the total U.S. GDP.[19] The study was conducted using a methodology developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization.[19] The study found that fair use dependent industries are directly responsible for more than 18% of U.S. economic growth and nearly 11 million American jobs.[19] “As the United States economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, the concept of fair use can no longer be discussed and legislated in the abstract. It is the very foundation of the digital age and a cornerstone of our economy,” said Ed Black, President and CEO of CCIA.[19] “Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past ten years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and nonlicensed manner."[19]

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisMunkey (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Me

Hi Angr. Are the VfD discussions not supposed to be visible on the template on the Talk page? -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the entire discussions, no. But if you click "show" on the template it should reveal the links to the discussions. Reduces talk page clutter. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I didn't see either of the Show links! -- Evertype·✆ 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

MassPike Sign image

Was there IfD for this, a tagging of it in regards to it being a problem with its fair use rationale, or did you just decide to remove it? (File:Masspike.png)

--- Jeremy (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a more accurate image with a rationale. --NE2 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the image had been tagged for 10 days as having a disputed fair use rationale. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)