User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 68

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

habit
Hello, Mr. Angr, if it's something that you do once in a year, is it a habit? 65.38.84.103 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Angr, it's not considered as a habit? 65.38.84.103 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know neither. 132.219.146.173 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the letter Ř in the Sorbian alphabet.
I noticed that the Sorbian alphabet article says that the letter "Ř" of the Upper Sorbian alphabet represents the /ʃ/ ("sh") sound. Now, I don't know anything about Sorbian, but this seems exceedingly unlikely, so I suspect that it was added to the article accidentally. You had added that to the article in this edit on 15 February 2005, and that entry in the table hasn't been altered since then, so I thought you might know what sound the letter "Ř" is meant to represent. Thanks! Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 02:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a mistake. Proto-Slavic /pr tr kr/ before a front vowel becomes /pʃ tʃ kʃ/ in Upper Sorbian (e.g. přećel /ˈpʃɛt͡ɕɛl/ 'friend' from Proto-Slavic *prijateljь), but at the time the language was first written down it was apparently still distinct from historical š, so they used a different letter for it. Presumably it was the voiceless equivalent of Czech ř, so something like [r̝̊] as in the Czech cognate přítel. Today it's pronounced identically to š in Upper Sorbian (so the first three sounds of přećel are just like the first three sounds of pšeńca 'wheat' < PSl *pьšenica), but the spelling distinction remains. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation and edits of the article. It's much appreciated. Apologies for my incorrect assumption about the /ʃ/ for "Ř" being wrong. Linguistics can be strange at times. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! There's a sound file of Czech přítel at File:Cs-přítel.ogg. If you listen you can see how close [r̝̊] sounds to [ʃ]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Danke, Gerda! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1922 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about old edition
Dia duit! I've been translating Irish phonology to Portuguese and missed a note for the following excerpt: "Until the end of the nineteenth century, linguistic discussions of Irish focused either on the traditional grammar of the language (issues like the inflection of nouns, verbs and adjectives) or on the historical development of sounds from Proto-Indo-European through Proto-Celtic to Old Irish." Is this info explicitly stated on any of the given sources, or was it more of a synthetical statement from experience? Go raibh maith agat. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Admirable article, BTW. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Uma medalha para si!

 * Muito obrigado! But can I make a slight correction to your Irish? It should be Ar son do chuid oibre (cuid is used with possessed mass nouns), and Ceilteacha should be capitalized. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into the cuid thing! By the way, no idea why this came out in Portuguese, lol! Leefeni de Karik (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know either, but I had one semester of Portuguese at university almost 30 years ago, so it's all good. But why is it "Uma medalha para si"? I would have expected "Uma medahla para você". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It implies the notion that you should keep it to yourself. A phrasal thing. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

File:John Tavener Song for Athene.ogg
Hi Mahagaja. Deleting an image you originally nominated for deletion when another editor opposes it is an inappropriate use of administrator tools. Please restore this file. Thanks,  F ASTILY   01:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It had no source, and it had been listed as such for more than 7 days. And no, the fact that the words "John Tavener" appeared on it is not sufficient source information. There was no information on the source of that particular recording, or who held the copyright on that particular recording. Recordings of music are classic examples of derivative works (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). There are two entities whose copyright claims need to be considered: the composer and the performer(s). Consider it this way: if this had been a recording of a modern orchestra playing a Mozart concerto, the file could not be called public domain just because Mozart's been dead for over 100 years. The performers would still hold the copyright to the recording. And in this case, since Tavener has been dead for only a few years, we have to consider both his copyright on the music itself (or rather, Chester Music's copyright, since they're the publisher ) and the performers' copyright on the recording. Unless complete source information for this recording is supplied, the file shouldn't be undeleted. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm troubled by your response. You don't seem to understand that deleting a page you nominated for deletion when another editor opposes it is an abuse of administrator tools.  I suggest you study up on WP:INVOLVED before performing admin functions in the future.  I've opened a DRV for this file.  -  F ASTILY   04:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm troubled by the fact that you didn't simply delete the file to begin with. Especially since you yourself nominated the same file for deletion on different grounds – you clearly recognized that the file was in violation of our fair-use policy. If you had done your job correctly the first time, I wouldn't have needed to delete the file. It's not as if I have some vested interest in deleting the file; it was going to be deleted sooner or later anyway. I was simply bypassing unnecessary bureaucracy to reach the inevitable result of the file getting deleted. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Gaelic redirects
Hi, would you be able to help with the Gaelic redirects? There appears to be some overlap between those pointing to Scottish Gaelic and Goidelic languages, for example, goes to second article, while  goes to the first. – Uanfala (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, sorry about the revert, happy to see it go back if you can please sort me out on the different Gaelics! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

14 years of adminship!
 Wishing Mahagaja a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Céline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celina ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/C%C3%A9line check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/C%C3%A9line?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Cool (African philosophy)/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cool (African philosophy)/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the Cool (African philosophy)/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

help with Irish name
Hi Mahagaja,

I was wondering if you could help me with the IPA for the name Bébhinn / Bebhionn. Taking the syllables separately, I get from the orthographic rules for modern 'Bébhinn', but I don't know if the second syllable reduces. Also, I was told that people will pronounce the 'o' when they see the Old Irish spelling today. Maybe it was pronounced in Old Irish too? But $⟨io⟩$ is not listed in our Old Irish article.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the name either, and I've never heard it pronounced. If it's still felt as a compound then is probably right for southern dialects and  for northern ones, but maybe it isn't felt as a compound anymore, in which case we'd expect reduction in the second syllable to . But $⟨io⟩$ isn't an Old Irish digraph, so I wouldn't expect to find it in Old Irish spelling at all. It's used in Modern Irish only. One thing I would expect is an additional $⟨i⟩$ after the $⟨é⟩$, thus: Béibhionn, but I don't know if that spelling is attested at all. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still written Be Binn sometimes, so I suspect it would be pronounced as a compound, which would fit how native speakers have described it to me. (None of the native speakers I've heard back from know the IPA, so it's hard to tell exactly what they're describing.) I saw one source that had "Béibhionn" as an additional spelling, but none of their mss examples seemed to have it.

Would the Bébhinn and Bebhionn spellings be pronounced the same? One native speaker told me that he pronounces the 'o', which surprised me. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bébinn should end in a "slender" consonant (palatalized alveolar [nʲ], alveopalatal [n̠ʲ], or palatal [ɲ] depending on the accent), while Bebhionn should end in a "broad" consonant (velarized dental [n̪ˠ]). I'm also surprised to hear of a native speaker pronouncing the $⟨o⟩$; I don't know what to make of it. Maybe he thinks that since the digraph $⟨io⟩$ representing /i/ before a broad consonant didn't exist in Old Irish, the $⟨o⟩$ must represent a full-fledged vowel, but it's far more likely to be an attempt at a modernized orthography. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think so. He transcribed it BAY-FIJONN (vs. BAY-FINN), which I assume means he's familiar with the Béfionn variant of the name. Also, it's been anglicized as Vivionn and Vivian, which suggested to me that someone heard the 'o' back then. But this site (which I just pulled off our WP article) doesn't show the 'o' spelling historically between the 11th and 15th centuries, which supports your hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put too much stock in the anglicization as Vivian. Irish names often get anglicized to things that they have only a little in common with phonologically, e.g. Sorcha → Sarah or Cathal → Charles. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Psalm texts
Perhaps the CBP version would indeed be better than the KJV, - didn't realise so far that it's also source text. Please suggest at Talk:Psalms, - I have little time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)