User talk:Mahagaja

; Archives
	December 2004 through May 2005; June 2005; 1–13 July 2005; 14 July to 31 August 2005; September 2005; October 2005; November 2005; December 2005; January 2006; February 2006; March 2006; April 2006; May 2006; June 2006;

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Franconian German; Tsakonian language; Old Low Franconian; Zulu language; Niger-Congo languages; Exberliner; Chukchi language; Tempelhof-Schöneberg; Malagasy language; S75 (Berlin); Tiergarten; South Australian English; Classical Japanese language; Treptow-Köpenick

Cleanup: Berlin Crisis; Swabian German; South African English
Merge: Measure word; Dawn (newspaper); Kosher foods
Wikify: Latin conjugation; Karl-Heinz Smuda
Expand: Gatow

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words - Smacky

Shouldn't happen again. Thansk for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 21:23 25 June 2006 (GMT).

Burmese language in Burmese

Hey. I changed the spelling of File:Bscript bamasa.png to File:MyanmaSa.png in Burmese because the former is infrequently seen in writings (i.e. newspapers and official publications even prior to 1989). I can't explain it, but people literate in Burmese just inherently know it (File:MyanmaSa.png) can be pronounced two ways. I'm not sure if I explained that adequately in the "Diglossia" section of the Burmese language article (I can't find a source to cite that). Also, I don't know whether images or Unicode should be used to display all of the Burmese text, because Burmese Unicode is still in development, and requires installation of several items. Can you help me? Thanks. Hintha 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use Unicode for most purposes, but occasionally using images for important words (like "Burmese" in the Burmese language article) is OK. But I wouldn't go through that article an make an image for every single word being used in an example! As for the opening sentence, I think it's probably least confusing to have both spellings, but if mranma ca is more commonly written than ba.ma ca, even before 1989 and regardless of pronunciation, then we should put it first. But for people (like me) who have never been to Burma and don't know all the nuances of language use, but can nevertheless read the script a little, it's confusing to say that the spelling mranma ca can be pronounced [bəmàsà]. Which is the more common spelling in informal writing? For example, say a Burmese immigrant to America was writing a letter home to his mother and wanted to say "I'm using so much English nowadays, I hope I don't forget how to write Burmese." Would he be more likely to write mranma ca or ba.ma ca? User:Angr 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in an informal letter, one would write mranma ca rather than ba.ma ca. But, I ba.ma ca is phonetically correct, although that is non-standard usage. It's sort of like hkang bya: (you in formal Burmese), which is never pronounced [kʰìNbjà], but as [kʰìNmjá]. And, which should be usen to refer to tbe Burmese language? mranma ca refers to the written language, while mranma caka: (မ္ရန္‌မာစကား) refers to the spoken language. Hintha 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would write mranma ca even in an informal context, then I guess we should only use that spelling on the page. And we should mention both mranma ca for written Burmese and mranma caka: for spoken Burmese. User:Angr 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay

I had a look, indeed, not nice again. I was going to have a loo at it after I would be back, but I agree with you that it should be deleted. It can be expected that it gets recreated at a different name again as he has dopne before..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ß

I see you've taken a look at some of User:Adam Carr's recent edits, in which he has replaced the ß in many German articles, principally street names, to render them "simple" (see my talk page), thus producing the likes of Voss-strasse and Rosa-Luxemburg-Strasse. Note that the former article begins "Voss-strasse (sometimes Voss-strasse) or Voßsstraße," which is both ghastly and wrong. I'd like to think he can be persuaded to see reason (I too dislike the ß, and wish it had been abolished, but I do not impose this on articles), but so far it's revert, revert, revert. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's just a condescending, xenophobic troll and I've given up fighting with him about it. I just have to keep telling myself "It's only Wikipedia, no one expects it to be accurate anyway" and then take his playground pages off my watchlist. User:Angr 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed "Voss-strasse (sometimes Voss-strasse) or Voßsstraße", that's hysterical! User:Angr 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody edited my User page!

Hi, Angr!

Somebody has put an irrelevant picture in place of the actual picture of me on my user page. I am a little annoyed about this, and consider it to be vandalism, as it is exactly the same as editing a wikipedia article by deliberately putting false information on it.

Is there anyway I can find out who did this, and therefore lodge a formal complaint against this person?

I will leave the picture there until you can reply to me, so maybe you can find out who did it (and then tell me how you found out).

Cheers, Angr,

Givnan. CCLemon 12:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the way to check who has made an edit is to check the History of the page. This is true for user pages as well as for articles. Checking your user page history, I saw that no one edited your user page. Then I went to the image description page of your picture and found the problem: someone uploaded a different image under the same name as yours. It was probably an honest mistake, not vandalism, but I left them a message on their talk page asking them to be more careful in the future. I also reverted to your image by clicking on (rev) in the "File history" section. User:Angr 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Angr! Helpful as ever! Thanks a lot. Maybe it was partly my fault, too, then for not personalizing the filename enough. I'll remember it in future! CCLemon 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Berlin reloaded

What do you think about this? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"articles that are not part of the AfD process"

Maybe I don't understand the process. The phrase "this article's entry" was redlinked, so I assumed that there was no entry on the AfD page and thus the process was incomplete.--Curtis Clark 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your weird signature

You appear to have a character in your signature that displays as "?" on my computer. Unfortunately, this means that whenever I edit a Talk page with your signature in it, your weird character is replaced with a question mark. I have gone through and laboriously copied your signature from the old version to the new version in an attempt to maintain the integrity of your signature, but this is an extraordinary amount of work just to maintain a nonstandard character in someone's signature on a Talk page, and I probably won't do it again. I am open to suggestions on how to leave your signature intact without it taking 20 minutes of my time to do so. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to the phonetic character I used to have in my signature. Don't worry about keeping it intact; the link to my talk page will still work even if it displays as "(t?k)". Anyway, I don't use that signature anymore. User:Angr 07:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I mainly wanted you to know that I at least tried to keep your signature intact, in case I was unsuccessful and you noticed it later. I did not want you to think I had vandalized your signature through malice or carelessness. Thanks for being gracious. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're fast!

You deleted this cat within a minute of my deleting the last image in it. You stole my glory in having cleared the cat :(. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha! Actually, I don't know how many times I've had categories like that deleted out from under me when I was in the process of emptying them, so it was nice to turn the tables for a change! User:Angr 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes it always seems to happen to me for some reason. I considered restoring it and deleting it again just so I could gloat in my summary, but decided that would be rather counterproductive =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done about such abuse?

Hi Angr,

I don't know if you were aware that a deletion campaign had been recently launched against Names of European cities in different languages and two successor pages. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages. The deletionists clearly lost by a wide margin (more than two to one), yet User:Mackensen has gone ahead and deleted the three articles anyway, essentially because he did not believe the users who voted to Keep knew what they were doing. I wish to protest such abuse in the strongest possible terms. I demand (1) a review and a reversal of these three deletions; (2) a censure of User:Mackensen's conduct and an appropriate punishment. I strongly believe he should be barred from the Wikipedia for such glaringly undemocratic, dictatorial, not to mention ignorant, abuse of the Wikipedia! Please let me know how to proceed. Pasquale 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things Wikipedia is not is a democracy. AFD discussions are not always carried by whichever side has the most supporters, but rather by the relevance of the arguments. If you think the discussions were closed improperly, the place to turn is deletion review. User:Angr 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr, for enlightening me. In this particular case, not only did the minority view apparently win out over the overwhelming majority consensus, but, interestingly, the minority view was predominantly held by an assortment of non-specialists in the relevant fields, while the majority view was predominantly held by the specialists (linguists, toponymists, geographers, etc.). Perhaps you will now tell me that the Wikipedia is not a place where a specialist's opinion counts at all, but, on the contrary, it's the minority non-specialists that carry the day. Now, how do you like that? If this is not abuse, I don't know what is. Pasquale 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flapping

The term flapping most commonly refers to what a bird does and so should not redirect to where you're pointing it to. Most people searching for "flapping" will want information on that as that's the most common meaning. We have an article gliding which is clearly about the most common meaning, not the linguistics process of gliding, the flapping article similarly should point to the most common meaning, not the linguistics process. Grook 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no linguistic process called "gliding", so the comparison is invalid. Look at What links to "Flapping": all links to that word are referring to the phonoogical process. The hatnote at the top of Phonological history of English t points people to other instance of the term. That's what hatnotes are there for. User:Angr 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that there are so many links to flapping as a linguistics process is because that's what the article was originally about. It's not about that now, and there will be even fewer "flapping" links about the linguistics process in the future. Grook 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly, there is such thing as "gliding" in linguistics if you check Google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gliding%22+%22linguistics%22&btnG=Search However, that's not the main topic at the "gliding" article, nor does the redirect point to an article that talks about that. The "gliding" article sensibly refers to the most common meaning in the main article. Personally, I agree with Grook that it should redirect to flap, but I'm not going to change it. Voortle 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Please read the policies you purport to cite. Absolutely nowhere in either of those does it state that years "should not be linked without very good reason".

What it actually says, should you choose to read it before using it to berate someone, is that there is no consensus about the best course of action to take about date links. If you choose to go a bit further and actually read the lengthy discussion that resulted in that guideline, you'll discover that the general consensus was to actually assess each link on its merits, and not just shoot them all on sight. Rebecca 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, the last time I read those pages, a few months ago, they did say precisely what I said. I didn't realize they had been vandalized in the meantime. User:Angr 07:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPAudio

I would like to ask you to look at Template:IPAudio. On the template talk page there have currently been raised questions about thte rendering of IPA and licensing infromation, both of which I believe you might have an opinion on. If you feel that the comments are warranted then perhaps you can point to a better alternative. Stefán Ingi 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali image

Hello Angr, I realize now why you were inclined to swap this image out. I've properly sourced the image and provided a link on the image. Who is the ultimate person or group to decide if the photo shows information (very pertinent information) to this article that isn't found in the image currently displayed? Netscott 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editors of Wikipedia. If you want to use the {{fairusein}} template, though, you have to provide a detailed fair use rationale, which in this case will have to include why the public domain image isn't good enough. And as I said on the talk page, arguing that the FU image is better just because it shows her in parliament really isn't good enough. User:Angr 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll add the rationale to the image's talk page. On somewhat legal questions like this it seems a bit strange that merely the editors of Wikipedia decide such questions, are you sure that's in accord with Wikipedia policies? Netscott 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in Mi’kmaq-land

I'd be grateful if you'd look in on the dispute at Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and its talk page. Evertype 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tucker

Angr,

Is there a particular reason why you deleted Chris Tucker's picture from his page? If there is, do you have another one to replace it? Dinobrya

The image did not have a copyright tag, and had been marked as lacking a copyright tag for more than a week. When you upload images, you need to include copyright information, including a fair use rationale if the image isn't free. Also, it's a good idea to keep images you upload on your watchlist so you can see if they get tagged for any reason. I'm afraid I don't have another image of him. User:Angr 07:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuE vowel split

Based on your comments on various talk pages, you seem to know a reasonable amount about English vowels, so I'm wondering whether you have any comments about the fact that in Australian English, the word gone is the only morpheme in the entire vocabulary that contains a long ɔː rather than a short ɔ (as in gondalier). Is this curious fact mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and if not, do you think it should be? (There are no minimal pairs, although I personally am in the habit of using gɔn for gonne, which means there is sort of a minimal pair in my idiolect). It has always struck me as interesting that there can be arguably-phonological splits for which only one example exists in the lexicon, which many amateur linguists find counterintuitive. Zerrakhi 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only word in the entire vocabulary? What about words belonging to Wells's lexical sets THOUGHT, NORTH, and FORCE? At any rate, it can certainly be included if it's verifiable by means of published, reliable sources, not if the only evidence for it is that a number of Australian Wikipedians confirm it to be true. User:Angr 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only word other than derivatives ("goner"), yes: the phonemes in thought, north and force are all /oː/ rather than /ɔː/. I've found some statements on Wikipedia that give support to the observation without explicitely confirming it:

Phonological_history_of_the_low_back_vowels#Lot-cloth_split states that "The lot-cloth split is the result of a late seventeenth-century sound change that lengthened /ɒ/ to [ɒː] before voiceless fricatives, and also before /n/ in the word gone".
Australian_English_phonology states that, "Historically Australian English also had the same lengthening of /ɔ/ before unvoiced fricatives, but, like the English accents, this has since been reversed".

Putting these two statements together, the explanation would appear to be that only the unvoiced fricatives were affected by the reversal, while the word gone was not. Which is certainly very interesting, and makes me wonder why gone was affected by the seventeenth-century development if it otherwise only affected the position before unvoiced fricatives. Zerrakhi 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it's true that in non-COT-CAUGHT-merging American accents, gone has the THOUGHT vowel (it rhymes with dawn), making it a member of Wells's CLOTH set (words that have the LOT vowel in RP but the THOUGHT vowel in General American). Most CLOTH words have historical short o followed by a voiceless fricative or in some cases (dog, log, hog) /g/. Gone is the only CLOTH word where the consonant after the short o is /n/, except that some American accents also have the THOUGHT vowel in stressed pronunciations of on. The "on line" is a fairly famous isogloss in American dialectology; accents north of the line rhyme gone with John, accents south of the line rhyme gone with dawn. But it's becoming less and less important as the cot-caught merger advances; for about 40% (and growing) of American English speakers John and dawn rhyme with each other anyway, so gone clearly rhymes with both. At any rate, gone is an unusual CLOTH word in American English, and it's probably not a coincidence that it's weird in Australian English as well. User:Angr 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re friendly reminder

Yeah, I normally do. Which one(s) did I miss? IceKarma ॐ 10:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freescale DragonBall, Kimberley Locke, and Juno Doran. But maybe you do a group of deletes and then a group of link removals; I usually do a link removal immediately after each delete. That would explain why I was still finding links to images you had only just deleted a minute before. No worries! User:Angr 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pic

Hi, thanks for sorting out the picture on my homepage. I would like to change the caption but don't know how! If you want, could you please change it to something like 'Temple at Manjushri Centre, England, NKT Spring Festival, May 2006'. Thanks Patrick--Patrick K 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-1-28-painting-fzn small.jpg

Thank you very much for your guidance on the copyright issue. I seriously consider this problem and I inquired the website editors -- my fellow Falun Gong practitioners. They said they are not clear about copyright but it is free to use on wikipedia by practitioners including me and a credit to the website is requested. But I did not get an official reply in writing yet. And since all website contributors are volunteers, I am not sure when I can get a reply.

Here is the English version of photo.minghui.org --: http://photo.minghui.org/photo/Eindex.htm These websites are collections of photos from www.minghui.org whose English website is www.clearwisdom.net

www.clearwisdom.net (www.minghui.org) is one of the websites maintained by volunteers consisting of Falun Gong practitioners. All the cost of the websites are covered by the volunteers and all the editors are the volunteers. One of the lefthand sidebar menu item is Photo archive. That will connect to http://photo.minghui.org/photo/Eindex.htm

The photo I uploaded was a photo of a drawing drawn by a Falun Gong practitioner in Mainland China. The name of the author is not given since

Practitioners are taught not to pursue fame according to Falun Gong teachings.
Releasing the name is not safe to that practitioner since s/he is in Mainland China. The website is public so police may arrest the practitioner after knowing the name.
A lot of arts[1] created by practitioners are free to download (photos, poems, ), as well as the Falun Gong books themselves, exercise videos and audios, other music by Falun Gong practitioners are all online free to download. Because one of the Falun Gong's goals is to save people, everything is free of charge.

I am sorry that this same photo is not translated to the English version of minghui.org yet.

I wonder if this photo could be labeled as fairuse instead if I am not very sure about the copyright. But this photo is currently only used in my user page, not an article page. So I don't know if this belongs to fairuse category?

I have seen a photo from another Falun Gong website [www.faluninfo.net] is uploaded to wikipedia. Can I use the similar copyright tag "no right reserved"?

Thank you, Fnhddzs 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]