User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 48

Judeo-Sorbian

Please explain to me your rationale for deleting the subsection on Judeo-Sorbian. While Paul Wexler's theories have profoundly and controversially influenced the linguistic scholarship of the various Jewish languages, as can be seen in his entries under Hebrew language under the (classification heading) and Knaanic language.--Orestek (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE. Theories that are outside the scientific mainstream have to have independent notability to be worth mentioning here. There's also the issue of relevance and interest to readers of the article. Even if this "theory" does deserve a mention at Wikipedia, I don't think it deserves a mention in the article Sorbian languages, because it isn't really relevant to them and it isn't really of interest to readers who want to learn about them. —Angr 07:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read over WP:FRINGE. I believe that the following is certainly true of Judeo-Sorbian:

"A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

Its necessary to be vigilant to root out people using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their favored theories conspiracy theories. I contend that mentioning Judeo-Sorbian is appropriate and in keeping with WP guidelines because of the widespread controversy stemming from Wexler's theory has publicized this otherwise obscure tiny Slavic language and people. Seeing that we both feel strongly over the rightness of our way of seeing this issue, how should we work this out in a way that's acceptable to the both of us?--Orestek (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's the Fringe theories noticeboard, where we can get more people to look at it and discuss it. —Angr 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to post Judeo-Sorbian up on the noticeboard? I'm not familiar with the protocol around doing this properly.--Orestek (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic or Baltic AND Slavic

Hi, I saw that You canceled my changes about Baltic languages. It was a big suprise for me as latvian (latvian is a baltic language) to learn that Baltic languages are included in Balto-Slavic family. There is no similar classification in Latvia - every latvian knows, that classification is Indoeuropian-->Baltic-->East Baltic-->Latvian - its written here and here too. Can You please show me some authorative reference about that - if You could - I will be very suprised about this important diference of indoeuropians languages clasification in english and latvian. This was not just a POV, sorry - just there is no term in latvian Balto-Slavic at all:)--Riharcc (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Latvians and Lithuanians seem to have political reasons for not wanting to believe in Balto-Slavic, but if you look at Balto-Slavic languages you'll find plenty of well-referenced discussion showing that there are good linguistic reasons to believe that the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages descend from a common ancestor. In fact, if anything is in doubt, it is not that Proto-Balto-Slavic existed, it is that Proto-Baltic existed, as some linguists believe that East Baltic and West Baltic are no more closely related to each other than either is to Slavic. —Angr 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are the two combined branches of IE that everyone agrees on. That's interesting about Baltic perhaps not being a single family. There's the same issue with Indo-Iranian (whether Nuristani etc. is a third branch), but no-one disputes the unity of Indo-Iranian as a whole. Likewise, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone dispute Balto-Slavic. kwami (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think, that that is for political reasons - this classification was already before Second Word war. Actually this is very big suprise for me - this classification of Indoeuropians languages. Yes, no one deny, that baltic and slavic languages comes from some baltic-slavic protolanguage some thausands years ago, however we (latvians and lithuanins) have diferent classification of this from english. Russians (slavic language) has the same classification as latvians - they are seperating baltic and slavic languages and there is no term balto-slavic in this classification, so it seems that classification with balto-slavic exists only in Western Europe/Usa, not in teritories where baltic and slavic languages are actually used as native language. As this is english article, not latvian or slavic - I agree, that term balto-slavic can stay, but if someone had written this in latvian or russian article, I guess he would be baned for vandalism :).--Riharcc (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

360 Architecture

I noticed that you've been involved in the editing and/or deletion of this page in the past and thought I'd let you know I've added {{advert}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{cleanup-link rot}} tags for reasons I've explained at Talk:360 Architecture. Let me know your thoughts. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lent/Archive 1#Request to add resource citation or change wording to match current resource citation

re. Talk:Lent/Archive 1#Request to add resource citation or change wording to match current resource citation

I've changed 'desert' to 'wilderness' - I felt the request valid, and thought that, with your comment, you wouldn't object.

Feel free to revert/discuss in talk etc,

Best,  Chzz  ►  19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object; I just wanted to point out that "desert" isn't wrong. —Angr 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

russkij

only because it is unsourced? You know it's true, let a Russian say King Kong. Mallerd (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The article about foreigners' accents of English is particularly susceptible to additions of the "I know this to be true, even though I can't find a reliable source" variety, but that's original research and a violation of WP policy. —Angr 10:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Thursday (Disambiguation)

Hello Angr, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering about the creation of a disambiguation page for Holy Thursday, since the locution can refer to both Maundy Thursday as well as Ascension Day (1, 2). Do you have any comments on this? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are only two things "Holy Thursday" can refer to, a dab page isn't necessary; a hatnote will suffice. Holy Thursday should definitely redirect to Maundy Thursday since the Thursday before Easter is by far the more common denotation of "Holy Thursday". All that's then needed is {{otheruses4|the Thursday before Easter|Ascension Day|Ascension of Jesus}} at the top. —Angr 21:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Hope you have a Happy Easter! With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA for Bainisteoir

Hi Angr, the IPA for Bainisteoir is needed at the Celebrity Bainisteoir article, as some editor is inserting a made up hiberno-centric pronunciation. Can you help? Tx, Snappy (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Emma Watson

I'm trying to work out what you did with the protection on this page. Happy-melon's actions was almost certainly unintentional. I think it should be unprotected (and probably the article as well), especially as this article is on the main page today. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page because talk pages should almost never be even semi-protected. Then I looked through the history and saw that the Grawp vandal had been vandalizing the talk page from a wide variety of unrelated IP addresses, meaning that blocking him would be virtually impossible. Thanks to Grawp, both the talk page and the article itself have to remain semi-protected today, despite the article's being on the front page. —Angr 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't notice that. Thanks for explaining. Unfortunate though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

We've met a few times over Harry Potter-related topics I believe. How is that going? I haven't been around in a while. I was wondering, if it's not too much trouble, do you think you could translate a (somewhat) short article from the German Wikpedia for me? It's a bit esoteric, but it relates to a wave of madness currently sweeping the world that I am attempting to do my own small part to cure. It is Nibiru. English Wiki's account of this material currently amounts to a single line, and the full page would go a long way to assuaging the issue. Serendi^podous 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. I'll work on it at User:Angr/Nibiru and let you know when it's done. —Angr 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :-) I was wondering, are you still planning on translating it? If it's too much trouble, please let me know. Thanks. Serendi^podous 07:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot all about it! I am still planning on doing it, though. Thanks for the poke! —Angr 08:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Value of Old Norse A

You reverted my edits correcting the a symbol a to ɑ, under the reasoning of "(actually "a" is a phonetic symbol)". That is not the point. I was not claiming that a was not a phonetic symbol. The a symbol, however, refers to a different value in the IPA than Old Norse's a represents. Look at the chart. You shall see that [a] is placed as a front vowel, when Old Norse a is a back vowel. [edit: It seems that I was under the impression that the phonetic double-story a was encoded in Unicode separately from a. It isn't, though it should be, so that typographers can choose the default letter variant instead of being forced to use a if they want phonetic capabilities] LokiClock (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If this edit was made by you, you did claim that "a" is not a phonetic symbol. In theory it's supposed to stand for a front vowel, but in practice it's used for both front and back vowels. —Angr 09:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisions to the "Agape feast" Article

I submitted some edits to the "Agape feast" article and then received an invitation to participate in the "talk page" to explain the reasons for the proposed changes.

This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia and am not sure I have found the proper discussion forum. Can someone confirm that I am in the right place to discuss changes to "Agape feast"?

Palaeographer (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Where you are now is my personal talk page. The place to discuss the article is Talk:Agape feast. —Angr 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. When I have some time, I'll address the problems with the article as it now stands and attempt a revision again. By the way, are you the one whose contributions I edited, or are you a Wiki moderator?

Palaeographer (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wrote the version you changed, but I have the article on my watchlist so I see the changes that get made to it. I am also a Wikipedia administrator, but that doesn't really play a role in the editing of articles. Admins have more abilities, but no more authority, than other editors. By the way, Welcome to Wikipedia! —Angr 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to see how the Wiki system works. I am not at liberty to spend more time editing the "Agape feast" article at the moment but intend to defend the edits I proposed in the near future. I'll try to be in touch with you later.

Yours, Palaeographer (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sich ständig mit den Armen abstützen

That request for translation on the Reference Desk was an interesting illustration of the limitations of online translation, I thought. The stuff Google produced about "shoring oneself up with the poor" looked like something George Orwell might have written (Down and Out in Düsseldorf and Leipzig, perhaps?), while the Systran gobbledygook about pushing against levers looked more like part of an instruction manual for driving a steam engine. A Google search for the exact phrase helpfully revealed the context, though! Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 11:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I found it too! —Angr 11:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek word

Hi Angr, just noticed you were seeking help deciphering that Greek word at [1]. Did you get a satisfactory answer? The second part of the compound is "-φυίας", gen.sg. of a noun denoting a state of mind, but I'm not yet sure about the first part. The script is normal contemporary to the book printing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, since the two letters before -φυίας are certainly -κο-, it can hardly be anything else but "κακοφυία(ς)", a word attested apparently only once in Plato, meaning "bad nature" [2]. There's no other word in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae that would match otherwise. I could try and check whether the initial ligature matches a κα-, but it seems plausible at least, and the word would fit the context ("if the memory of the bad-natured minds of some people hadn't long deterred me"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I never did get a satisfactory answer, so thank you very much! It was particularly frustrating that no one at Greek Wikipedia even seemed to be able to read the letters. On the right there's a larger image where the word is a bit easier to see. It is strange that the first kappa looks so dissimilar to the second one, but as you say, it could be a ligature. Anyway, I have no doubt you're right, and I shall go to Welsh Wikisource forthwith and correct the word to κακοφυίας. Thanks for your help!! —Angr 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, these (post-)Byzantine minuscules are not something modern Greek readers have much opportunity getting familiar with and they aren't very intuitive to the uninitiated reader. You need a little bit of exposure to old manuscripts. I'll check with Faulmann's Schriftzeichen und Alphabete aller Zeiten und Völker when I'm home, it has a useful table of these thingies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your fascinating responses

...such as this recent one (beginning: "Superficial appearances can be very deceptive in historical linguistics...") are too irresistable to those of us struggling mightly to stay on task in RL. Just so you'll know that besides the OP and other contributors to the thread, this usually anonymous readers is going on record to declare how greatly appreciated your explanations are, that significantly fill in the holes in my haphazardly acquired knowledge base. I hope in my equally haphazard way to contribute likewise to others. Keep on keepin' on! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to be of help. But why do you call yourself "usually anonymous"? —Angr 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When I read and don't remark, which exceeds my (always signed) contributions. Since I've been terribly busy lately and ineffectual in overcoming the backlog, I can't summon enough concentration to work on mainspace pages as I'd like (I've got two fistfuls of notes for follow-up!) but do make some attempt to scan the WP:RDs...filled with diversely appealing infoglut on which I wind up far more time than is reasonable! The Science RD, for example, where I have little to offer but find much of interest. Self-discipline isn't my strong point, but I'd like to think I'm a good conversationalist and my kids (brought up in a rather parochial school system) have a deeper/broader fund of knowledge than their peers.-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about New York blank.svg

(Also on your talk page at Commons, feel free to answer here or there.)

I think this question is somewhat silly, but I'm not a map person, so I need to ask. You created File:New York blank.svg, and a question has come up in the Feature Article Candidacy of Fort Ticonderoga over whether the data set used to create it is freely available. Can you answer this question?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response (and for educating me). Magic♪piano 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pokorny/Kobler

Both Pokorny and Kobler needs special software included in installers, namely StarLing and AdobeReader. 83.11.48.86 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AdobeReader is available for free and is already installed on practically every working computer. (And in fact, any PDF reader will do; AdobeReader is the best known, but it's not the only one). No one has heard of StarLing. —Angr 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But StarLing is too free. Pokorny inside StarLing is a DBF/VAR database, not document. 83.11.48.86 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html doesn't require AdobeReader anyway; it's a regular html document viewable in any web browser. —Angr 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

StarLing can extract whole Pokorny database with content analogous to Kobler's content to RTF format by using "print" option, and this RTF output is readable by anyone. It is only known to me FULL Pokorny text available online, which is too useable offline. 83.11.48.86 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do you think you are playing at?

Just what on earth do you think you are doing with the linguistics article? Quite shameful behaviour. You are required to address concerns about content of an article on its talk page before removing it. You have failed to do so. Are you not familiar with the evidence-based procedures of Wikipedia? Just what is it that leads you to imagine that it is appropriate to push your own, narrowly-defined POV? Either address the evidence or stop removing appropriate and relevant content. That, in case you are in any doubt, constitutes vandalism, and if it continues I will seek to have you banned from editing. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are required to discuss changes you want to make once they have been reverted. That's the point of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The first time your changes were reverted, you should have let that stand and have gone to the talk page. Instead, you reverted and reverted and reverted, and pretended that people restoring the status quo have to defend themselves. That isn't the way Wikipedia works and you know it. Your edits have no consensus; no one wants them there but you. —Angr 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia used IPA

You changed my transcription of Peadar Ua Laoghaire, claiming that although I footnoted it to a specific page in Ó Cuív's The Irish of West Muskerry, that Ó Cuív's transcription varied from the one used here. Wikipedia is meant to use IPA, so you must mean that you think that Ó Cuív's transcription varies from IPA, and it does in certain respects, but not in this respect. I am wondering whether you are trying to enforce Galway pronunciation on all Irish pages here - is that what you are doing? In Munster Irish the final vowel in Laoghaire is pronounced as an "i". Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne also shows that that is the pronunciation in Kerry too. Why should Peadar Ua Laoghaire be paired up with a Galway pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.19.131 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

When Ó Cuív uses the symbol [i] he means a lax vowel that's more of an [ɪ]; in this case, that's an allophone of /ə/ after a palatalized consonant. I'm not enforcing Galway pronunciation, but I am enforcing conformity with the system used at WP:IPA for Irish and Irish phonology (where the allophones of /ə/ are discussed). Using [i] would imply a short tense vowel, one with the quality of [i:] but short; sort of the way a Donegal speaker pronounces unstressed í. —Angr 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The page you directed me says "Unstressed /ə/ is realized as a near-close, near-front [ɪ] when adjacent to a palatal consonant, e.g. píce [ˈpʲiːcɪ] "pike". Next to other slender consonants, it is a mid-centralized [ɪ̽], e.g. sáile [ˈsˠaːlʲɪ̽] "salt water"." Which shows that I am right. So you vandalized the page.

No, it shows that if we used a narrow transcription, [ɪ̽], would be right. But we don't; we use a broad transcription. And you clearly don't know what vandalism actually means at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you read and understand that page before you toss that word around. —Angr 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-occlusion

Stub-class was right. -- Evertype·✆ 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)