User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 49
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Barnstar
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thank you for the Chinese phonetic translation on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
- You're welcome! —Angr 05:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, one last question. If I pluralized the word, wold there be a change in pronunciation, and if so, what would it be? Ye Olde Luke
- I don't think so, but I don't actually know Chinese. I got the answer to your question by going to Wiktionary, entering each character you were looking for, scrolling down to the Mandarin heading, and copying what it said there (but leaving off the diacritics that indicate tone, as they aren't used in everyday transcriptions of Chinese). The second character can be either chao or zhao, so I googled both Fanchaoting and Fanzhaoting and found Fanchaoting is more common. What is this word, anyway? —Angr 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It means "rebel". I got my pronunciation by listening to the audio clip from this website, which most unhelpfully didn't give the word in English. It's for an essay comparing morals in various American science fiction franchises, and the section in question was regarding Firefly. Thanks for the link, and I'm glad you like your barnstar (I liked your fried chicken story on your userpage) :) --Ye Olde Luke 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk)
- I don't think so, but I don't actually know Chinese. I got the answer to your question by going to Wiktionary, entering each character you were looking for, scrolling down to the Mandarin heading, and copying what it said there (but leaving off the diacritics that indicate tone, as they aren't used in everyday transcriptions of Chinese). The second character can be either chao or zhao, so I googled both Fanchaoting and Fanzhaoting and found Fanchaoting is more common. What is this word, anyway? —Angr 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, one last question. If I pluralized the word, wold there be a change in pronunciation, and if so, what would it be? Ye Olde Luke
Fanchaoting is correct. Fan means to oppose or be against, and chaoting means the court (the court of the emperor).
Barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| You're a really good general contributer to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! Advanceforward (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
Message to Bärlin
Sorry for asking this question on your talk page, but I think it may be too parochial for the en:language desk: On the German reference desk I stumbled across the (jocular?) term "Wemsingetiv", which seems to denote a sort of possessive dativ. Example: "Das ist dem Angr seine Benutzerseite." The posters in the thread pointed out that this is a construct often used in the Rhineland (but I am certain that I have heard it occasionally in Viennese dialect).
Googling for "Wemsingetiv" gets me to the above mentioned de:WP reference desk and nothing else. So, the question is: Is "Wemsingetiv" a proper term in linguistics, or, if not, what is the correct terminology used for this dialectal contruct? The article on dative case does mention the possessive form in Greek, Latin and Hungarian, but not in German. Of course, it is ungrammatical per se, but there still may be a technical term for it. Thank you and greetings from Vienna to Berlin. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's ungrammatical per se, it's just nonstandard. I suspect "Wemsingetiv" is a typo for something, but I don't know what. And I don't know what the construction is properly called in linguistics either, I'm afraid. I would tend to "dative of possession", but of course that usually refers to Latin constructions of the liber est mihi type. —Angr 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Out of the blue I would think, that "Wem" is (Wer /he in the 3rd person) Dativ, as you say. "Sin" is rheinisch for "sein" /his/hers (as in "sin al" (His old lady), "getiv" will come from Genitiv, Dativ, Akkusativ, Nominativ, all the same nonsense, so just some "ge-tiv", I never have heard of it, but might look at the desk, still I think it is not even nonstandard, but some clever invention by some joker--Radh (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Images
Um, how exactly are you helping wikipedia? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thankyouthankyouthankyou...
You've helped me finish a very frustrating and exceptionally bizarre puzzle.
For your trouble:
|
A ticket to Mars | |
|
|
Don't worry about any confusion. I'll take it from here. :-) Serendipodous 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for the ticket. But I don't know if I'll be up to traveling to Mars when I'm 88, or if I am, if I'll really want to stay there for almost 5 years. Last I heard, it's kind of difficult to breathe there. —Angr 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Canadian English
I owe you an apology. I reverted your edit to {{Canadian English}} earlier today, on the basis that standardization of the templates in this series was not all that important (since they never appear on the same talk page), but visually distinguishing this particular template from {{WikiProject Canada}} (which used the same SVG image) was important since the two templates routinely appear next to one another. At least that was the basis for my opposition to the change back in 2008 when it was first suggested. What I forgot today, and ought to have remembered, was that {{WikiProject Canada}} has been changed to now use a stylized maple leaf, rather than the Canadian flag SVG image, so my concern over visually distinguishing the two templates is now moot. It's really just an image preference issue now, and standardizing the templates in the series is as good a reason as any to pick an image. There is a discussion on the template talk page, in which I have said that I would have no objection to your proposed change, and I have posted a notice of the discussion over at WP:CANBOARD so that perhaps we get a wider consensus before making this change, hopefully settling this issue for good. I hope that's helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
122.163.170.163 block-evasion
Man, I had no idea who or what was happening with that user, but figured there had to be some back-story. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. If you want the backstory, just read the talk page (search for the name "Supriyya"). +Angr 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
aber in Wien wohne ich
Ich besuche jetzt Freunde in Graz, aber in Wien wohne ich, It's still strained, but gramm. corr.. Ich besaufe mich gern mit Freunden vor dem Ballermann, aber in Wien wohne ich in einer ganz ruhigen Gegend --Radh (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, because "in Wien" takes position 1, so "ich" gets moved to the position after "wohne", which has to be in position 2. But *"aber wohne ich in Wien" is wrong (unless it's a question or a conditional, both of which have the finite verb in apparent position 1). The point is just that "aber" itself doesn't take up a position. +Angr 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not necessarily wanted to argue against you, it is just that I am more comfortable with my "intuitive" feelings, about german, than with formal analysis- I am really pretty amazed at your command of german grammar. (I saw this nonsense about WEMSINcasus on your page and could not resist to comment on it.--Radh (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Disputed fair use
I've had to decline to delete File:Aram Khachaturian.jpg and File:HorstBuchholz.jpg, sadly, because the NFCC were changed a couple of weeks ago to make attributing the copyright holder optional. Feel free to FFD. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is an unfortunate change, especially since the proposal to make it did not garner consensus. So the change was made without consensus (as happens all too frequently here). It looks like the pro-copyvio forces at Wikipedia have won another round. +Angr 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That complaint is fairly ironic, seeing how I just read an AfD discussion where you clearly decided against the vast majority. ^_^ 88.217.4.83 (talk) 01
- 17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this should be speedily deleted. Can a full deletion discussion be held if you feel the image doesn't meet our fair use guidelines? Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It really should be speedily deleted. Our use of it is impeding on Reuters' ability to sell it (see WP:NFCC#2). +Angr 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You tagged File:Reuter.Time.Sept.18.1950.jpg because "article has NO discussion AT ALL of any alleged historical importance of this particular image." ("NO...AT ALL" = shouting by a Wikipedia administrator?) According to the tag the article does not have to show this, rather it says removal of the image would be indicated when "Image is being used only to show what the person looked like, not in any discussion of the magazine or this issue of it." You will actually find that the article makes reference to the specific cover of Time magazine, as it states " Ernst Reuter became their spokesman and leader, a symbolic figure of the “Free Berlin” as shown on the 1950 Time Magazine cover." So it appears to me that the tag should be removed. Ekem (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, because you only just added the phrase "as shown on the 1950 Time Magazine cover", without a source, despite the fact that the Time Magazine cover says nothing whatever about his being a symbolic figure of "Free Berlin". There is still no discussion of this issue of the magazine. +Angr 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is the point of discussing the issue, as you come with a prejudicial conviction that "fair use" is not to be allowed on wikipedia: "I feel strongly that allowing content under a "fair use" claim is directly contradictory to Wikipedia's stated aim of being a free content encyclopedia. Moreover, it's unnecessary. I have never seen a single "fair use" image that was actually needed in the article where it was used"? In fairness to your fellow wikipedians, please work to make your point of view wikipedia policy, instead of trying to impose your view case by case where no argument will ever pass your system of beliefs. Obviously wikipedia currently does allow "fair use", however, that will not stop you from imposing your own "actually needed" rule. Ekem (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't about my personal opinions; this is about existing Wikipedia policy, which the TIME magazine cover violates in the way you are wanting to use it. +Angr 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is the point of discussing the issue, as you come with a prejudicial conviction that "fair use" is not to be allowed on wikipedia: "I feel strongly that allowing content under a "fair use" claim is directly contradictory to Wikipedia's stated aim of being a free content encyclopedia. Moreover, it's unnecessary. I have never seen a single "fair use" image that was actually needed in the article where it was used"? In fairness to your fellow wikipedians, please work to make your point of view wikipedia policy, instead of trying to impose your view case by case where no argument will ever pass your system of beliefs. Obviously wikipedia currently does allow "fair use", however, that will not stop you from imposing your own "actually needed" rule. Ekem (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Dr Rajendra K Pachauri
Hi Angr, I have made my comments here. As a commited vegetarian myself, I feel very anxious about the whole debate around meat and the environment. For me the issue is about v"Greener" farming methods per se, not meat.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've answered at Talk:Vegetarianism#Rajendra K Pachauri A Vegetarian and UN Report Bias?. +Angr 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Caversham NZ FAC
Hi Angr - I've fixed one of the two points you mentioned in the Caversham FAC as you suggested, and hopefully have found a compromise solution to the second point. Would you care to take another look? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Request
I ask you to help with "Russian language" article. It's nominatated into GA but has some problems covered in GA review. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced
Please do not add unsourced content to biographies of living persons as you did at Phillip Glasser. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...wha? 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
122.163.101.245
Hi Angr,
Can you check out the user at: 122.163.101.245 who recently vandalized USER:AndrewCarnie. I think it might be supriyya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhreir (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. The IP is from Delhi, like all Supriyya's IPs have been, so you're doubtless right. +Angr 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Any Supriya news? Linguistixuck (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Delaware languages - extraneous links in "Classification" section
The terms "Eastern Algonquian" and "Alongonqian" (language family) are linked in the lead of this article. Editor "Ausli" added more links of the same terms in the "Classification" section, so that "Eastern Algonquian" was linked two extra times in this section, as was "Alonguian". He also added an extra link to "Proto-Algonquian", which was already linked in this section, and also extra links to "Munsee" and "Unami". I pointed him to the relevant sections on Linking some time ago and removed the unnecessary links. I posted notes for him: User talk:Auslli#Links in Delaware languages. Thanks. Jomeara421 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, okay. But piped links shouldn't remain as "Algonquian languages|Algonquian" after double-brackets are removed! +Angr 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. :) Jomeara421 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Regional vocabularies of American English
As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Relationship among/between
Hi Angr,
Are you sure? "Relationship between" sounds considerably more natural to my ear than "relationship among". Am I missing something? garik (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Between" is usually used only when two parties are involved; "among" with three or more. +Angr 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've heard that claim before, but it seems to me to be a poor description of English usage, and, as far as I can tell, is viewed as a myth by almost all references. The entry for "among/amongst and between" here gives a good summary. garik (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not prescriptive enough that I would have changed it from "between" to "among" if "between" had been originally written; but I see no benefit or increase in idiomaticity to changing "among" to "between". +Angr 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of the three "disputed usages" on that page, the only one I find really good is "They searched the area between the river, the farmhouse, and the woods"; "among" would be really weird there. "We shared the money between Tom, Dick, and me" is acceptable; I wouldn't write it myself, but I wouldn't change it in other people's writing. (But if I had written "among Tom, Dick, and me" and someone else changed it to "between", I'd change it back!) But "The duck swam between the reeds" is (IMO) just plain wrong unless you mean there were two reeds and the duck swam between them; if you mean there were a lot of reeds and the duck was swimming among them, you have to use "among". +Angr 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not all that convinced by the examples on that page either. But take at look at the examples in the sources the page links to. To my ear "the relationship among the three Goidelic languages" actually sounds a bit odd in a way that "relationship between" doesn't, and my intuition seems to be shared by these sources: Chambers, for example, suggests that "Between is more usual when individual people or things are named", and Random House that "Between also continues to be used, as it has been throughout its entire history, to express a relationship of persons or things considered individually, no matter how many". Not that it's a matter of any great moment, but I do think that "between" actually sounds preferable, rather than merely equally acceptable here. garik (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The examples at Merriam-Webster are also quite good, I think. garik (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not all that convinced by the examples on that page either. But take at look at the examples in the sources the page links to. To my ear "the relationship among the three Goidelic languages" actually sounds a bit odd in a way that "relationship between" doesn't, and my intuition seems to be shared by these sources: Chambers, for example, suggests that "Between is more usual when individual people or things are named", and Random House that "Between also continues to be used, as it has been throughout its entire history, to express a relationship of persons or things considered individually, no matter how many". Not that it's a matter of any great moment, but I do think that "between" actually sounds preferable, rather than merely equally acceptable here. garik (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've heard that claim before, but it seems to me to be a poor description of English usage, and, as far as I can tell, is viewed as a myth by almost all references. The entry for "among/amongst and between" here gives a good summary. garik (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Baptist lead
I agree with your sentiment in wishing for a more clearly worded introduction to the Baptist article, but I struggle to lead with the phrase "A Baptist is a Christian..." This really minimizes the scope and assumes an awful lot. The article focuses much more on the ideology and the theological movement than on individuals as "Baptists". I wish that it were easier to name the article, such as with "Presbyterianism" (as opposed to "Presbyterian"). Do you suppose we could make up a name like "Baptistism"? Also, while congregational polity is likely most common, I wouldn't include it in the first sentence. It does make its way into the "Baptist beliefs and principles" section. The first sentence should make it clear that the term Baptist can describe an individual, a church, a denomination, or even an entire movement. HokieRNB 21:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Answering at Talk:Baptist so that others can join in. +Angr 07:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
re: Your Message
Hi Angr, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 13:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)