User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 8

More spelling thoughts

This is probably redundant at this point but I checked out the index to the 1942 book by Hamilton which you pointed me to. It does indeed use 'Nidhogg'. It also uses an array of forms which I have never seen and are either typos or highly eccentric Anglicizations:

Farbaut (Fárbauti)
Jomunrek (Jörmunrekr)
Gyoll (Gjöll)
Muspelheim (Múspellsheimr)
Ginungagap (Ginnungagap)
Serimnir (Sæhrímnir)

And all female goddess names are Anglicized (?) to end in 'a':

Gerda (Gerðr)
Hela (Hel)
Urda (Urðr)
Iduna (Iðunn)
Frigga (Frigg)

Sometimes the book uses 'ö' (Bifröst, Jötunheim) and sometimes it doesn't (Nidhogg, Ragnarok), with no system I can divine.

You can find the form 'Nidhogg' in more recent overview-of-mythology works (I finally found it in Littleton) but I think it will almost invariably be in contexts where the decision is made to use no diacritics at all. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Image: Gibralter in Europe== (Now revised)

sorry about not getting your message sooner. Have made modifications. Thanks for your intrest! User Lofty

Odin

hello Angr -- could you drop by on Talk:Odin, if you have a moment? I am getting annoyed with someone there. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean, you are a Celtologist. Look at the etymology section now, it's all about Proto-Celtic; at least say that I am making sense, celtologically speaking (if I am). dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's ok. Not much more needs to be said, I agree, but User:Wighson expresses emphatically different views on talk, but I think I can handle it. regards, dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thanks, Angr, for making an exception to your general rule and supporting my RfA - I was truly touched by the confidence my fellow editors have shown in me, and well do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 07:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Random question.

Hey. I noticed you're the last one to edit loísmo and being that you're an admin maybe you'll be able to give me an opinion on this. Basically I rewrote the article mostly based on what's in the Spanish version. Since there is a laísmo article (and laísmo is the exact same phenomenon basically) which in my opinion isn't as well written as loísmo I was thinking it would be nice to merge the two, mostly axing the laísmo article but taking the good parts. I don't know, maybe you're not interested in hearing all of this, but I thought I'd might ask: what do you think? Thanks, Andyluciano 04:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity Article - Remember Me?

Hey Angr. Just wondering if my example for obesity will be fine up again. To be honest, the first pic was not me at all and thats why I had the weird changes of mind. However I have finally got my act together and took a pic of myself properly, and I am willing to put it on the Obesity Page. Is this ok? - I promise this time it won't go off either,as it obviously is my own pic and I won't feel nervous about it. - Boochan 13:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meet/meat

I notice that your answer to a question of mine at Talk:Phonemic differentiation has been used (together with the question) by User:Foosher in making a new article at Meet-meat merger.--JHJ 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject concerning the same user, I left the following message on his talk page eariler this week:

I've noticed that you've recently written articles on a number of phonological features of English dialects. In some of them, however, you seem to be using sources (in some cases in fact copying bits from them) without referencing them. For example it's pretty clear that both the Pane-pain merger and Toe-tow merger articles contain material lifted from an article by Peter Trudgill available online at http://www.norfolkdialect.com/trudgill.html but this is not acknowledged in the articles. Please rewrite these articles in a way that acknowledges their sources and avoids any copyright problems.--JHJ 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no response, and last night the comment was removed by an anon. --JHJ 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've had a go with toe-tow merger, meet-meat merger and wait-weight merger. But pane-pain merger will have to [weːt] (not [wɛɪt]), unless someone else looks at it.--JHJ 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch grammar

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Dutch_grammar#Gender_of_nouns. Ucucha (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-beer-burr merger

Bear-beer-burr merger (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 20:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to LGBT Wikipedians?

Have you considered moving to LGBT Wikipedians so the Gay Wikipedians page can be deleted? tdempsey 02:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I believe Queer Wikipedia still exists and I belong to that, too, but the standard on this site is LGBT which I strongly agree with. I understand your desire but disagree with it. We need a central name and LGBT Wikipedians works to include everyone working on the project - Category:LGBT - so LGBT Wikipedians is the logical choice. tdempsey 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak vowel merger

Re: User talk:Jimp#weak vowel merger

Angr,

I'm from Sydney, Australia. Jimp 19Dec05

You may be wondering why I'd posted this on your talk page. Yesterday I found a message on my talk page apparently left by you. It had been signed by you but dated the 4th of October 2005 which I had found a little odd. Naturally I assumed that it had been you so I replied here. Just now I find that it was not you but 64.194.44.220 copying and pasting your question onto my page. I don't know why he or she did this but anyway my more full answer is where it belongs on the Weak vowel merger talk page. Jimp 20Dec05

edible/inedible

Angr, Excellent point, thanks for pointing it out. Consider this...for consistency, use either permissible/impermissible or included/excluded, so that by simply scanning the page, the reader can easily see that these two guidelines are complimentary to each other. My recommendation would be Permissible foods; Impermissible foods. thanks, Master Scott Hall

Yes, and please follow your own advice! On the msg you left on my talk page, you just typed your name instead of signing with the four tildes. As a result, there was no link to your user page, which makes answering you more difficult. As to permissible/impermissible vs. included/excluded, I balk at calling any food "impermissible" except in a religious context (Kashrut etc.). That's why I went with permissible/excluded. Perhaps simply "Foods on the diet"/"Foods not on the diet"? --Angr (t·c) 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for no tildes. I agree with your objection to impermissible, except for the fact that permissible implies that anything other than permissible is by default impermissible, and therefore subject to the same misinterpretation as a religious mandate. I do like your suggestion about on & not on the diet, and will assume that it is agreed upon, and therefore use it. Again, sorry about the tildes. I am a longtime user of Wikipedia, but an admitted newbie to editing/talking. I am not even sure if I am replying to this correctly, but am open to constructive advice. Thanks --Master Scott Hall 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) <- Hope I got that right![reply]

IPA

I've been working on IPA pronunciation for cities in Oregon. Would you mind checking through my contributions and seeing if I've been doing them correctly? In a bit, I'm going to start on Yupik villages in Alaska, and I want to make sure I've got English right before other languages. the iBook of the Revolution 02:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're interested

in Regional vocabularies of American English. I raised my gripes on the talk page. Thanks for your time, Tom e r ^talk 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

endlich hab' ich dich gefunden!!!

Wait! Don't run and hide while reading this headline! This is not a Liebeserklärung. :-)) Aber so einen user wie DICH suche ich schon die ganze Zeit in der englischsprachigen WP. Even though I have got a degree in English there are a lot of "things" I do not understand here. May I ask for your help? --Fromgermany 11:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Great photographs by the way. I like obese people who are proud of themselves, really. My Mom is an obese woman herself.

Oh dear, I think I have made a mistake by sending my reply for you to my OWN discussion page. I think that I DO need some help indeed. --Fromgermany 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, let's get started. It's a technical problem. Wenn ich in der deutschen WP einen Artikel zur Diskussion stelle, dann schreibe ich oben

{ { Überarbeiten } } and the article changes automatically. What's the English WP's equivalent?? What must I do on the English WP if I want to have an "Überarbeitung eines Artikels"??? --Fromgermany 11:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoticism and rhotacism

Rhoticism and rhotacism (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. 64.194.44.220 21:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston accent

Thanks for looking up and adding the references. BCorr|Брайен 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schwa and the STRUT vowel

There's been a discussion on Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences about whether there's a significant difference between "American English" and "British English" (and more specifically, GA and RP) as far as the relationship of schwa and the STRUT vowel is concerned. Some sources (e.g. the OED 3rd edition pronunciation guide) suggest that they're the same phoneme in "AmE" but different in "BrE". Do you have any comments? --JHJ 21:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

I wonder whether I could enlist your help with some IPA. An anonymous editor has added pronunciations in "approximate English" to many of the articles in Category:Dinosaurs. To my mind these are very ugly, so I wondered if you or someone else competent with IPA could replace these with IPA equivalents. I'd be massively grateful. Soo 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Llorona

IPA template "should be used" and transcriptions "should not be linked" sounds like there's a style guide-type article associated with this. Is there? Also, why did you desyllabify the transcription there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmlandfair (talk • contribs) 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't sign that. My bad. And thanks for the explanation. I checked the template talk pages before I asked, but couldn't find anything informative. Thanks. Dave 16:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language article

Hi Angr! Could you take a look at Automatic speech and see if it needs to be merged somewhere? --HappyCamper 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to English article

Angr, could you have a look at Talk:English_language#US_or_UK_first.3F and let me know if you agree with me? Evertype 15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans

Hello, Angr. Thank-you for the heads up on the Anglican user box, although I'm not clear just what its purpose is.

Also, regarding the cat of Anglicans vs. Episcopalians- I always thought of all communicants of the Anglican communion as "Anglicans" and those belonging to the ECUSA (as well as Scotland and others) as a subset, called "Episcopalians." It wasn't very PC in Scotland or in the US after the American Revolution to be Anglican. So we are really all "Anglicans" with those of us in the US and Scotland known as "Episcopalians."

Therefore, I think there ought to be an "Anglican" or "Anglican Communion" category, with sub categories for "Church of England," "Anglican Church of Canada," "Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.," "Scottish Episcopal Church'" etc. See [1] for the whole list. I would recommend that the categories and subs be organized in that way, but will leave it to your discretion. Thanks for including me in this discussion. stilltim 12:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your points and would vote for a combination of the relevant categories under "Anglican." Perhaps a note at the top would explain to our teenage friends the wonderful news that they are indeed part of something bigger. I think I could do that, but will leave it to you to effect the combination, if you wish.stilltim 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican infobox

Is there a way that I can use this infobox in a Babel template? --JB Adder | Talk 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OBESITY

"6 vandalisms today is enough. sprotecting again"

Thank-you. -- Jason Palpatine | Talk 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad-lad and trap-bath splits

I've listed the redirects, bad-lad and trap-bath splits and bad-lad and Trap-bath splits up for WP:RFD, also suggested that Southern American English be moved to Southern Drawl. Please contribute to the discussions. Robot32 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glotalic theory

I see that you rejected Kwamikagami's claim at Proto-Indo-European language that Glottalic theory is "now widely accepted." Did you see his latest changes to Glotalic theory? Not only does he claim that "the glottalic theory is generally accepted today"; he deletes the Objections section. --teb728 09:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

Hi Angr. Can I ask, if, of course, you don't mind me asking, what your reasons for the legalisation of marijuana actually are. I, myself, do not wish for marijuana to become legal. Thank you. Oh, and, in another userbox, it says, "This user is a carnivore." Are you sure it shouldn't say, "This user is an omnivore"? As, a carnivore is a person who only eats mean: nothing more, nothing less. Thanks! --Kilo-Lima 17:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiweise

I haven't contributed to WikiWeise, but I have read plenty of materials by and about them, so if you have a question let me know. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand [2]: people should use scientific books and articles as sources, but don't necessarily have to specify them in the articles: "Das verpflichtet uns nicht, hinter jedem Satz Quellen anzugeben. Aber es verpflichtet alle Teilnehmer, zumindest auf Nachfrage wissenschaftlich anerkannte Quellen für ihre Aussagen zu liefern. Zweifelhafte Webseiten, Fernsehberichte, populärwissenschaftliche Bücher etc. gehören nicht dazu." AxelBoldt 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Booo!

Booo! On your decision to delete the article Gallery of motorized bicycle. Your comments (not necessarily vote) will however be appreciated in the afd of Gallery of motorcycle trikes. (But you knew that was comming right? Because you read everything in the precedence that exist in the discusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of motorized bicycles. I hope to see your explanation. --CylePat 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]