User talk:Mukerjee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Writing Help Pointers for self
[[ Image:Archilochus-alexandri-002.jpg|128px|thumb|left|Female ]]
- {{mprotected}}
- {{fairusein|Al-Kateb v Godwin}}
- meta:Help:Table tables
- meta:Help:Formula math formulae
- Wikipedia:Utilities
[edit] Eskimo words for snow
Could you please add some comments on the recent discussion at: talk:Eskimo_words_for_snow. Regards, Fedor 08:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)
[edit] Bengali article
Hello Mukerjee!
First of all, thanks for your input in the Bangla article. It's good to see someone actively editing different sections. I wanted to just add as a comment, however, that the romanization we've been using in the article has been made fairly systematic and consistent owing to the combined efforts of many Wikipedians to accurately describe the phonemic (not phonetic, not orthographic) system of Bengali. I noticed you reverted my edits, where I changed some of your renderings of Bengali words to reflect this romanization. I wanted to let you know that I will probably be changing these back, so as to fit with the rest of the article, and with all the other articles describing any Bengali words in English. Just thought I'd let you know - and of course if you have questions or would like to contribute to our transliteration/transcription debates, please feel free to comment on my user page. Thanks! --SameerKhan 12:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I am aware of the difference between transliteration and transcription (I don't have my degree in phonetics/phonology for nothing!). If I have been sloppy about the words I've used, please feel free to edit. I believe that when a few of us were trying to devise a standard Romanization scheme for Bengali on Wikipedia, we were thinking of a phonemic representation (which is technically not transcription either, as a side note) as opposed to a letter-by-letter transliteration, which would be totally unhelpful for non-Bengalis. The idea was to represent the pronunciation of Bengali without getting into the phonetic details of IPA transcription. Anyhow, I'm sure you're aware of this and all... but one thing - please make sure that when you comment on my page, that you comment on my discussion page and not my homepage! Thanks :) --SameerKhan 08:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bangla wikipedia
Hi, you were fairly active in the Bangla wikipedia in the past. Now that we are promoting it greatly, it has grown a lot ... right now up to 1672 articles. If you have time, please check it out (http://bn.wikipedia.org ). Thanks. --Ragib 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what you have to do
i doesn't understand why you people interfere with about which you have not much knowledge.Yousaf465
[edit] please don't mess up Gutenberg
Reverts and multiple major edits of the sort I found there today do not help. I've posted the identical note on another page as well.DGG 06:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] and don't mess up printing press, either
We discussed this one once already, and once is enough. You and I and our friends took the East Asian material, formerly mentioned in small sections scattered over various pages, and gave it what was merited by its importance and stature, the page History of Typography in East Asia, a title worked out through consultation. References have been made to this page from all appropriate places we could think of, and if you can find some more places for a see also:, please add them. The title is sufficiently distinctive to make the meaning of the cross reference very clear: one page is discussing one tradition, the other page is discussing another. This is not a POV split--the POV is identical: there are two important traditions, and those who would learn about typography, should learn about both.
The subject you steadfastly and rightly wanted to talk about did not lose by this--it gained. Consolidate the gains, and write some more about it on its page, instead of repeating the same few paragraphs on many pages. I will gladly read what you edit, so I can learn more. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the EA article should be considerably longer, have more quotes from EA sources in translation, have a more detailed history, discuss the technology in greater detail, discuss the organization of the trade, discuss more of the major printed works, discuss the spread of the printed works into neighboring countries if there is documentation, have associated short biographical sketches of all the major participants, and a longer list of suggested English-language readings.
I've set out quite an agenda, but I have gathered from various comments and contributions that there are others here who can help. I cannot, but only benefit from what the more knowledgeable will write! DGG 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] or movable type
seriously, my fellow editor, perhaps a new page might deal with these aspectsDGG 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semantics
Thanks for that great expansion of Semantics. I've been thinking it needed an overhaul like this for a while, but never got around to it because of the scope of the enterprise. I think you've done an admirable job of compressing a lot of info in a few concise and clearly worded paragraphs. It may be a little bit skewed towards Peregrin's view on things*, but I think it is a great base to build further on. Thanks again!
Keep up the great work, — mark ✎ 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
* I'm missing the embodiment angle for example, with works like Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1987; and non-cognitivist Wittgenstein-inspired views on semantics like those of Sperber & Wilson and Keller (1994, 1996). But hey, I admit that that's rather whiny to say after such a great expansion. So thanks again — your work is highly appreciated!
By the way, are you aware of Countering Systemic Bias? It seems to relate to the discussion started here. You might be specifically interested in its linguistics subsection. Regards, — mark ✎ 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
