User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Maltese people

Please can you actually check what it is you are reverting. The user is trying to push the propaganda that the maltese are a purely northern italian, continually catholic race, as fact, when this is clearly not the case. Just because you disagree about the mixed language thing doesn't mean your oppinion is different on everything to me. Please look in detail at what is going on. Cheers. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say I am doing no such thing. I'm not even going to defend that just yet.. this IP's agenda is transparent. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agenda? And what exactly am I doing in the article now? Name a single POV that it could be construed that I am trying to push then? 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

American English

I have undone your edit to my edit and removed the reference to 'English English'. Please see the discussion in English language in England's talk page where this move was agreed. Markb (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article may be called English language in England, but that doesn't mean "compared to English language in England" is a grammatical construction. "Compared to the English language in England" is a little better, but is still far more awkward than "compared to English English", which is the natural way of saying what we want to say. (Looking at Talk:English language in England I see the page was moved despite the absence of any consensus to do so. Oh well, that's not the first time that's happened, and I fear it won't be the last.) —Angr 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates in language infoboxes

Nobody else has weighed in on our discussion of geographic coordinates in language infoboxes. Are you happy if I start using them in articles about small, localized languages? I think they're very useful in these cases. The only risk I can see is that there might be fights if people try to use them for large, widespread languages. But if this does happen, there are various ways it could be dealt with (e.g. make a policy decision that this is inappropriate, or use the historical origin, or whatever), and I think it would be a pity to disallow geographic coordinates in general just in case somebody might use them inappropriately. -- Ngio (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (maybe you should respond at the template talk page)

Well, I'm not going to around reverting you if you do, I don't feel that strongly about it. But even for small languages I feel like coordinates are somewhat misleading in reference to languages. Languages aren't connected to a point on the Earth, they're connected to their speakers and nowadays are as mobile as airplanes and other means of mass transportation allow them to be. (For example, I believe there are dialects of Hmong that have more native speakers living in Minnesota than in Laos, because virtually the entire community moved.) I do admit that language maps are helpful, and I wish Ethnologue had them for more countries, but maps can easily show the entire range over which a language is spoken and can also show, for example, where the ranges of two languages overlap. But a coordinate point seems so excessively precise, like it's saying "Here is the one and only precise point on the Earth where this language is spoken" rather than "Here is the rough area where the highest concentration of speakers of this language live". —Angr 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, that's good enough for me. I'd of course like something better too, but dots (+ a prose description of geographical extent) are the only practical way to make a start at geocoding. If there is interest in geocoding then in the future perhaps something can be worked out with attaching kmz files to pages—but that would be a huge amount of work with lots of (technical, political, etc) problems, and simple coordinates would still be likely to be of interest, e.g. for language family articles. It might turn out that the inherent abstraction of a dot-on-a-map is an advantage. -- Ngio (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Mahagaja/Archive 41 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Chamal Talk ± 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson.

Thanks for teaching me something I did not know. I have withdrawn my edit and apologize. Sorry.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was new to me once, too! To answer the question you asked on the talk page and then withdrew, the advantage to having the article Anglicanism directly in Category:Christian denominations is that when a user is at that category, they can get to the article directly rather than having to click through Category:Anglicanism to get to it. Category:Christian denominations then functions as a list of articles on Christian denominations directly, rather than just as a grouping of categories relating to Christian denominations. —Angr 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ah-ee-oo

Funny, N-true asked me the same thing last month. I don't know, really. Either [ˈæmsœʃ] or [əˈjuːsoʊs]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Linguist assistance requested

As a linguist who has seen the recent goings-on at Talk:Maltese language, could you pass on your expertise at Talk:Il- after this edit? Knepflerle (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegan dinner

The problem is when you invite a bunch of non-Vegans to a Vegan potluck and you label it as the "Guilt-Free Potluck" where people can "bring their best cooking". Now, "Guilt-Free" might mean "vegan" to you, but it doesn't to an awful lot of other people, and you've invited them, too, not just vegans. You may have had in mind that the "Guilt-Free Potluck where people can bring their best cooking" would contain only Vegan food, but a great many other people just don't want to see a meal without some tasty meat dishes, or, bare minimum, without a few dairy products. Chocolate cake, you see, just doesn't taste as good without real eggs and milk. Bottom line is that people disagree about how they interpret things, and what they would like to see at a potluck. When you say "anyone can attend", do you happen to really mean "anyone can attend, but we're not actually going to let non-vegans plan any dishes we happen to disagree with"? The Jade Knight (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But the title "free-content encyclopedia" isn't equivalent to "guilt-free potluck", it's equivalent to "vegan potluck". "Free content" has a specific meaning that is not actually open to very much interpretation, just like "vegan" does. That Wikipedia is (supposed to be) part of the free content/copyleft movement is well known; people who come here ready to contribute are expected to know that when they arrive, or at least to find out quickly once they get here. Non-vegans are welcome at the potluck too, but they should know better than to show up with a big bucket of KFC. —Angr 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of people fail to understand this basic principle and insist we should be able to use images here liberally within the confines of copyright law. For example is troubling. If this person has spent three years trying to understand why we heavily restrict fair use images, either the system has badly failed, the user has, or a combination thereof. Given how much hatred there is for people who remove fair use images that fail our policies, I think the system is failing. I'm just not sure where; the policy is clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say Hammersoft. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'kno, I can believe that Wikipedia is perhaps supposed to be a "free-content encyclopedia" but I couldn't tell where in the depths of policy it might say so. The motto does not actually contain the word "content" & as such, is very likely to be taken as "free" as in "no cost", not as in "no restrictions on use".

(My personal impression is that Wikipedia's structural problems generally result from incomplete understanding of what Wikipedia - or even an encyclopedia, in general - is and is not. WP may not be supposed to be a directory, or a collection of indiscriminate information, or a place to publish original reserch, but regardless the average netizen's idea of WP is basically "an attempt to compile all the information in the world". We couldn't care less about notability, reusability, or even verifiability.)

BTW, the "wacko" quote looks like some kind of a mutual strawman. The only thing being called wacko there seems to be the idea that any media can be adequately substituted by text, not the idea that "free means free".

--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Resource Link in the Phonetics sect.

Firstly I must say that I am disappointed in your action. There was NO commercial aspect to this inclusion, and I am fully aware of your Nofollow policy. The software that was offered was absolutely free and in fact the download page does not have a single advertising link on it. The whole site has no commercial links. This software is quite unique, this is why I devoted the time in creating it. There are currently many users including members of the IPA and University professors. It was placed as a resource,appropriately for those involved and interested in Phonetics, not unlike the other resources offered by Universities (and I might add that they are quite commercial today, I work for a couple). This software allows users to easily enter Phonetic Symbols into their documents. I guess you've never tried to do this?

I will waste no more time here. I don't get paid for this. Thank you.

Wayne Kirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynera (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided offered a "free trial", suggesting that a paid membership is required for the site to have full functionality. If that's not the case, I apologize. You must understand we got a lot of links added and those of use trying to keep Wikipedia spam-free usually don't have to time to do more than a quick check of added links to see if they're commercial or not. —Angr 13:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENLANG articles included in Wikipedia 0.7

Hi Angr, WP:ENLANG has a few articles included in Wikipedia 0.7:

• Ainu language
• Maori language
• Pennsylvania German language
• Manx language
• Franco-Provencal language

..if you think any of them should be dropped or replaced by something else, pls recommend it at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. If you can improve any of the articles, please do. I plan to get to them in a few days.. the deadline is Oct. 20. Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PHON index philosophy

I can understand not wanting to imply Yiddish being a dialect of German, but that's exactly why I put Old High German as the node header, not Standard German. Technically Scots should be under Old English too. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way or the other. Either both Scots and Yiddish are out on their own, or they're listed as descendants of Old English and OHG respectively. I think the first way is less likely to cause trouble, even if the second way is linguistically more accurate. —Angr 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the letter P in German

Hi Angr, I always appreciate your answers on the language desk so forgive me this direct approach. I asked a question a couple of months back which didn't get much of a response. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on it. Many thanks, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that question. I didn't answer because I didn't have any suggestions better than what Kjoonlee suggested. Are you sure you're hearing "Ess-Pöh-Öh" for SPÖ? Or are you hearing "Ess-Peh-Öh" spoken quickly enough that it merges into "Ess-Pöh"? (And have you tried Germknödel yet?) —Angr 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely Pöh. The newsreaders enunciate pretty well around here, and (since it's election time) I'm hearing it a lot. Never mind, thanks for the reply. And yes, my already ample waistline has been taking a further hammering since I discovered a joint that serves the stuff, which (you were right) is extremely delicious. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But are you sure it's "Ess-Pöh-Öh" and not just "Ess-Pöh"? —Angr 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think so – I'm pretty sure I hear three sounds. And why would a newsreader say "Ess-Pöh", in any case? Would it be because of this process of assimilation that Kjoonlee mentioned? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of it being pronounced as a mixture of acronym and initialism, i.e. being read as "SPö" (the way WLAN is pronounced vay-lahn in German, not vay-el-ah-en). Can you maybe find an instance of this pronunciation on YouTube so I can hear it too? Austrian political parties do very little advertising here in Berlin... —Angr 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll listen out for it next time and see if that's really what they're saying. And if I can isolate an example of it for you, I will. I was hoping that the ORF website contained an archive of old broadcasts, like the BBC website has, but it doesn't. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's vowel assimilation south of the border. German newsreaders tend to have more of a /pe/ pronunciation but the further south you go the more it sounds like /pø/, definitely the Austrian ones. Don't think it's quite the cardinal vowel though, more of a half-rounded vowel because I can feel my lips round some more for the Ö. Then again, Austro-Bavarian dialects often turn /e/ sounds into /ø/ sounds (cf das > des > dös) so it may be dialectal. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in, but thought you might find this interesting - an ÖRF politics trailer on Youtube. The first is definitely a pöh and the voiceover at the end a slightly-rounded peh. Knepflerle (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's excellent. The first one is exactly the pronunciation I'm talking about. (Hey, this place is better than the language desk.) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Romansh Wikipedia - thank you for the information

Thank you for informing me that there is already a Romansh Wikipedia. I had missed it, because, as you said, I had been using the spelling "Romansch".I have now seen it is in the List of Wikipedias.Many thanks for the information, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Parable

I love your parable, and totally agree. You should split it off into its own essay page. -- how do you turn this on 01:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It already is. WP:VEGAN is simply transcluded onto my user page. —Angr 07:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Kgalema Motlanthe

Hello Angr

I've replied on my talk page, due to technical limitations. Please copy my response to the reference desk.

Also, I forgot to include the fact that, in all the Sesotho articles, you can hover your mouse button over almost all Sesotho text to view the I.P.A, which solves the problem of his first name (as someone mentioned the fact that his name appears in an example on Sesotho concords; you can basically ignore the fact that in the example it appears as a verb, as this is the verb whence his name comes and the pronunciation does not change). If your computer doesn't show the I.P.A in the pop-ups properly then you can just view the page source.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! —Angr 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please note that the vowel in the first syllable of his name is a near-close near-back vowel. I noticed that in your transcription you put it as /o/ (close-mid back), which is certainly incorrect. The n is most certainly syllabic!

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-native pronunciations of English article

Hi Angr,

I added some comments to Talk:Non-native_pronunciations_of_English. Since you seem to have been quite active in cleaning up this article in the past, I would value your input. Can you take a look when you have a chance? Thanks! -Stian (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was already doing so as you posted this! —Angr 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dang, you're quick. Thanks!

-Stian (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Veropedia

I read some little section you wrote on "Veropedia". It said something about how we should be watching our articles if they were of good quality because of members of a certain site who might come here to edit them. I wonder, what are the requirements for a wikipedia article to be placed on Veropedia? Is it bad, in any way, or worrying? Or should we se it as harmless rivalry? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't what their precise requirements are. It tends to be featured articles, A-class articles, good articles, and other high-quality articles. —Angr 11:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Do you think they would pick Pier Gerlofs Donia, the best article within the wikiproject I co-founded? You see, since it has been selected to be released by wikiProject release 0.7, we are watching it very closely. And right now, it is a Good Article nominee, so if it'll be added on Veropedia, will they come here and alter it? Do you think they would do that? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They might pick it for inclusion, but they'd be unlikely to alter it here, as it's not the sort of article that would be of interest to their commercial sponsors. My only concern is that because Veropedia is both for-profit and funded by advertising, they could come under pressure to alter content to put their sponsors in a positive light. But an article about a 16th-century Frisian folk hero is not the sort of article where commercial interests are likely to come into conflict with NPOV. For comparison, I'm the main author of the featured article on Irish phonology, which is also included at Veropedia (see http://en.veropedia.com/a/Irish_phonology), but as far as I can tell they haven't altered the article. —Angr 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is good. They won't aim for the type of article, so there is nothing to worry about. Thanks for explaining this to me. I was alarmed by your text but not any more. This is good. Angr, btw, if you have the time for it, will you perhaps review Pier Gerlofs Donia or Dorus Rijkers for me? Just a request, thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Dear Angr, in connection with your message about the photo I uploaded a lot time ago, I see several people were commenting that the tags are not appropriate. I checked it once again, the copyright status of the image is not clear. I even think that they were copyrighted. So maybe it will be best if you erase the three photos that I have uploaded: Image 1, Image 2, Image 3. Sorry for the inconvenience, I was not aware of the wikipedia standards when I was uploading them. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, they'll be deleted in the next few days. —Angr 09:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg

I added the source, but since it's being used under fair use, whether it came from the pope or the ayatollah doesn't matter. Fair use means we are specifically using it despite the owner's copyright, whoever he might be, or whatever it might be, so not knowing who the owner is, or what the owner's copyright is, is hardly a deletion reason. We are not a bureaucracy, where we follow the letter of rules blindly. --GRuban (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I just saw your user page. You're making a point about fair use images in general. Well, that's nice, but make it on the Village Pump, or some other place where it will actually affect policy. Don't do it one obscure image uploaded two years ago at a time. Being treated as your soapbox leaves me with bootprints.

For what it's worth, you have a definite point, and if our sole goal was to create free content, we certainly would not accept fair use. But that's WikiSource, not Wikipedia. Our goal is also to be the sum of the world's knowledge, and we simply can't do that without some fair use content, as there is clearly irreplaceable content that is not free, yet would leave a gaping hole were we without it. That's the point of the fair use laws. It's not just "it's not illegal", it's more "this is exactly what the law was written for." It's like saying "since we shouldn't cross the street in most places, we shouldn't cross it in the crosswalk either."

Specifically for your Vegan Potluck Dinner analogy, this dinner is also the primary food source of quite a few children and homeless people who can't afford any other food. Of course it shouldn't be, they should be getting three course meals provided to them by their parents, or by the government, or by dedicated charities ... but it is. And some complex proteins just aren't provided by any single vegetable. You can tell people that they can still get their complex proteins by eating this complex combination of vegetables, but those vegetables are pretty yucky tasting, so they don't get eaten. You can say it's their parents' responsibility to make sure they do, but then, if they had parents like that, the children wouldn't have to be coming here for their main food source anyway, would they? Or you can say that our responsibility is to our Vegan nature, not to any malnourished homeless people, and they can lump it. Well ... I think enough people here at this potluck like bringing food because they enjoy having people enjoy eating it, not because they enjoy cooking and then leaving the food to spoil. Here we have people willing to donate excellent eggs and milk and cheese and honey, and clearly mark which dishes are still Vegetarian, if not Vegan.

But again, that's a discussion to have elsewhere, where more people are listening. Not where it impacts on this obscure - but irreplaceable - image. --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "making a point" with this image. Our fair use policy requires that the source be specified and the copyright holder named (and incidentally the copyright holder still isn't named!). That's the only reason I tagged the image "no source". My views on non-free content had nothing to do with it. —Angr 04:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The default assumption for all images is that the source is the copyright holder, since we can hardly have the default assumption the source is violating the law. I can hypothesize that the copyright holder was Worlds of Wonder, and now is whoever bought their intellectual property after they went under, since it seems to be a posed publicity photo, but that's just my speculation. However, it doesn't matter. Either this holder or that holder, or any holder, will do. Hence my first comment, we are not a bureaucracy: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (and that's a quote from the rules, policies and guidelines! :-)). We need to know the copyright when we are asserting we are adhering to that copyright. But where we are asserting fair use, that means we are fine with violating the terms of any copyright which may exist, so even should we not know the source or copyright holder, it shouldn't stop us from displaying the image. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the spirit of all our policies relating to freedom of content is that non-free content is used only where it's a significant addition to the article, and the article would be harder to understand without it. This image, which is utterly superfluous to the article where it's used, completely flies in the face of the spirit of the policy; it's only the letter of the rules that allows you to being using it at all. —Angr 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. The argument changes. Now it's the old "two wrongs will make a right" bit, the "you were wrong first" bit. Please, say it isn't so.

But let's address the point. Utterly superfluous to the article? It's a picture of the founder of the company; using one of the company's iconic products; an iconic product, mind, that depends quite a bit on its appearance, but which is not particularly easy to visualize without a picture. Surely not.

In any case, even if that were so, if the issue is that you believe the picture to be superfluous to the article, wouldn't the thing to do be to discuss it on the article talk page, and argue for removal from the article, rather than nominating it for deletion? There is plenty of constructive work to do to improve the article, it's almost a stub, I'd be glad for your help, if that is your real goal. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read and re-read what I wrote, and I've given up trying to find "two wrongs make a right" and "you were wrong first" implied in my statement. I've also given up trying to find any benefit that the image brings to the article. Neither is anywhere to be found. —Angr 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I won't quarrel. What does it come down to? Would my expounding further on the usefulness of the pic in the article be sufficient? Or is more discussion of fair use required? More about Vegan potlucks? :-)--GRuban (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IPA?

I've seen your recent active edits at Belarusian phonology. Would you please read my post at the article's talk and possibly advise as to whom to turn for help in that matter? Yury Tarasievich (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)