User talk:Mahagaja

Banbha

Hi, I don't know whether it would be considered vandalism for me to directly edit the pronunciation indicated in the Banbha article. Can you see my comment on the Banbha talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banba#pronunciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.177.184 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Go ahead and make the correction. Angr (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Some help?

Hi, I saw you are an admin. Could you please delete my user page and talk page and then protect my user name as I want to leave wikipedia? Thanks for your help. ^Babub→Talk 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can delete your user page, but user talk pages don't normally get deleted. We also don't usually block people just because they want to leave. If you want to leave, just stop editing. Angr (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you could delete my user page, it would be great. Thanks. ^Babub→Talk 12:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources to demonstrate existence of criticism

Hello Angr --

Re: edits over at SDL Trados, a few anon IPs and Special:Contributions/Ghislandi have edited the article to remove any mention of criticism of the software. I've been a user for over a decade, and there has been considerable criticism of various aspects of the software on many different online fora. I understand about reliability in general; my intent in adding the cites was not to make a claim one way or the other that the criticism was correct, but instead to reinforce that the criticism exists, which is what the anons and Ghislandi seem intent on scrubbing away. See Talk:SDL_Trados#SDL_Trados.23Criticism for some past mention of these issues.

Lack of backwards compatibility is not the only extant criticism, but the current state of the article seems to imply that it is. For example, complicated and error-prone licensing has been enough of a serious concern in the user community that SDL is advertising the simplified licensing scheme in SDL Studio 2011 as a selling point.

In this light, how best can criticism be included in the SDL Trados article? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As a PS, does Special:Contributions/Ghislandi's contrib history merit marking as a WP:SPA? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if the point is to show that the criticism is out there, it has to be sourced to something more reliable than blogs (unless they're by recognized professionals) and forums. What have published reviews in specialist journals and the like had to say? Random people griping in a forum or on their own blog just doesn't meet the standards for reliability that Wikipedia has. I'm not sure what you mean by "marking as a WP:SPA". People's comments in deletion discussions and the like sometimes get tagged with {{spa}}, but Ghislandi hasn't participated in discussions like that. Angr (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: criticism, your edit note stated "sorry, but blogs and forums are not WP:reliable sources"; the section at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion seems to say otherwise:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".

Finding reviews of SDL Trados is a challenge for two main reasons -- 1) translators don't really have much use for a specialist journal, so there really aren't any that I'm aware of; 2) the product has a "Review" feature, intended for use in reviewing translations, so any search with "review" in the string generates thousands (millions?) of false positives.

From what I have seen, ProZ is pretty much the forum for English-writing Trados translators, with the Yahoo user group the main runner-up. And again, there really aren't that many specialist journals for translation, as the field is primarily comprised of sole-props and small operators that don't have the time or money for trade publications, especially when our main means of keeping abreast of the business is online instead of via trade mags.

The one blog post used as a citation was published by the CEO of a translation services firm, and is clearly marked as such at the top of that page (http://blog.gts-translation.com/2009/12/14/sdl-trados-is-it-worth-the-money/ ).

I've tweaked the wording of the Talk:SDL_Trados#SDL_Trados.23Criticism section to avoid implying that lack of backwards compatibility is the only criticism.

Re: WP:SPA, thank you for the clarification. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already one ref from The Journal of Specialized Translation; does that Journal publish software reviews? I guess Dave Grunwald is enough of a recognized expert that you can use his blog, but really only for things he says, not for the comments from other people. Angr (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead, but sadly they seem to do more by way of academic studies than product reviews (c.f. "Translation and Technology: a Study of UK Freelance Translators", or "Corpora in Translation: A Slovene Perspective"). I'll think about how best to incorporate that one blog post so it's clear that it's an opinion piece. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gooch

I think you misused Rollback on your last edit to Gooch. The edit made by the IP was not vandalism as they explained why they were removing the entry and probably felt they were improving the encyclopedia. Please consider discussing the entry. Thanks. GB fan 15:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seemed like a gratuitous removal of information. As the comment on the talk page shows, people whose name is Gooch dislike the fact that the word is also a slang name for the perineum, but the fact that some people find something offensive isn't a reason to exclude it. People who hear the word "gooch" and don't know what it refers to will want to look it up at Wikipedia, and I see no reason to conceal information from them. Angr (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right that is not a reason to remove information but instead of treating the edit like vandalism you should discuss the edit with the person. When someone leaves an edit summary that explains their removal the least you can do is explain why you are reverting their change. GB fan 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So now in the middle of a content dispute you revert to what you believe the page should look like and then use your admin tools to protect the page? Aren't you WP:INVOLVED? GB fan 15:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just a disambig page; it's not like it's a question of POV. When an anon keeps coming back to a page forcing his changes on it despite the absence of any consensus (or even logical reason) to do so, my choice as an admin is to protect the page or block the user. I picked the one that seemed less disruptive, as this way he can at least present his arguments on the talk page. Angr (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And you should present your arguments on the talk page also. You are forcing your view on the page despite the absence of any consensus to do so. You have another choice as an editor also and that is to ask an uninvolved admin to look at the page and decide if it should be protected. I don't see anything anywhere that says the consensus is to keep that on the page. Most of the talk page discussion prior talks about removing it. I think you made the wrong decision to use your admin tools when you are involved in the content dispute. GB fan 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I unprotected it again. I can't possibly guard every page in the encyclopedia against destructive editors. Angr (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it was a very obvious case of disruptive removals, bordering on vandalism, Angr's administrative actions are justified, per WP:INVOLVED (see the third paragraph). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED says "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." and I am an administrator and I would not come to the conclusion that it is vandalism, unless you are saying I am not a reasonable administrator. The reason I would say it is not vandalism is that policy says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." and I believe based on their edit summaries it is a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia no matter whether it is right or wrong. Even you say it is "bordering on vandalism" that would mean to me that you agree it is not "blatant vandalism" (correct me if I am wrong). GB fan 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy says "e.g. blatant vandalism," not *"i.e. blatant vandalism." That means that vandalism isn't the only straightforward instance where the need for administrative action is obvious. If you don't see the anon's edit warring as disruptive, I'd say you were being unreasonable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the edit war that took place on that page as disruptive. THe anon was disruptive as well as the admins who were on the other side who were using the rollback tool on non-vandalism edits and weren't discussing why the entry belonged. Did you read the rest of the third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED where it says "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards."? No admins are on their own out here there are always uninvolved admins that can take care of things. GB fan 04:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt either of us are going to come to an agreement here and I'm sure Angr is tiring of this discussion between us on his talk page. I think that this boils down to the difference between "you didn't use your admin tools in the best way" and "you misused your admin tools." Maybe Angr could've done better, but this doesn't mean he misused his admin tools. If you're the kind of person to get up on somebody for not being a perfect, by-the-book administrator, then you're likely to do some Reichstag-climbing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Google's endangered languages project

• Endangered languages A project by the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity– Ling.Nut (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Respell

Please, see my reply at Template talk:Respell#Displaying the schwa. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

another year

have a happy one! Malangali (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You too, belated by one day. Angr (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	for this. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Great consonant shift

In June 2009, you added a merge tag to this article, but didn't provide any rationale or initiate a discussion. So now, it's three years later and no further activity or discussion has taken place. Can this be wrapped up soon? WTF? (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you say I didn't provide any rationale or initiate a discussion. The discussion is at Talk:Great consonant shift#Redirect to Grimm's law. User:Greensburger and I were really the only ones to discuss it; I supported the merger, he opposed. User:Tropylium made a comment but didn't really commit to a position. I suppose I'll start an RFC for it in order to attract more voices. Angr (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

More linguistics

• Light verb (AfD discussion)

Enjoy. Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Vedda language

Since you've commented on the talk page, thought I'd let you know that there appears to be an edit war starting up w at least one falsified ref. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD Light Verb

Angr, I don't feel you should close the AFD discussion for this article yet. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect the points raised in this discussion. The deletion debate needs to be left open / reopened pending adequate rewrite.Drew.ward (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do you seriously think the result will change if the discussion stays open for another 3 days? This is what's known as a snowball keep. Angr (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The point of the AFD process is to ensure quality of WP. If problems have been raised with an article within such a discussion, they should be addressed before the process is ended. otherwise there's no point in even bothering and anyone who wants can put whatever crap they want to on the site.Drew.ward (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • AFDs are closed after seven days regardless of whether the problems mentioned in them have been solved or not. In this case, it was closed after four partly because you (the nominator) voted "keep but rewrite", essentially withdrawing your objection to the article's existence, and partly because it's astronomically unlikely that three more days of discussion would have changed the outcome. If you feel the article needs rewriting, the thing to do now is get busy rewriting it rather than complain that an AFD whose result was already clear was closed early, especially when you yourself agree the article shouldn't be deleted. Angr (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Or, more succinctly and in traditional form: AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Respell

Hi Angr, please see this discussion. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"hard-core language nerds"

Hi Angr! Context.

A little rite of passage for language nerds must surely be when they have their first dream in the language they're studying.

I still have dreams in Japanese... and I apologise, and ask if we can continue in English. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've never dreamt in Old Irish! Angr (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Much worse when you transfer very obvious stuff onto your native language(s)... I once accidentally lenited in English, confusing a girl at the ticket desk cause I'd asked for "two hickets" >.< Akerbeltz (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In Irish, English words beginning with "t", "d", and "f" don't undergo lenition anyway. Do they in Gaelic? Angr (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The situation is not entirely clear but on the whole, they do if the initial also occurs in Gaelic, so a lot of native speakers would lenite torch to "mo horch" but probably not "mo zebra" Akerbeltz (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In Irish, the rule as far as I can tell is that lenition applies to foreign words only if the change isn't "too severe" (involving debuccalization, d → ɣ, or deletion). So p, b, m, k, g get lenited in foreign words, but f, t, d, s do not. I noticed this once on Ros na Rún: the character Tadhg was called a Thadhg in the vocative, but the character Tom was called a Tom without lenition. Angr (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)