User talk:Richwales

Nasality of Czech

Do you have any other sources (preferably linguistic in nature) to support your idea that Czech is somewhat nasalized? I will admit that I first started to really pick up on nasality after my last trip to the Czech Republic, but I had significant linguistic training before that trip and did not notice anything particularly nasal about Czech.

Ryan Smith 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Ryan Smith

Sorry, no, I don't have any specific sources. This was simply my own observation based on hearing lots of Czech speakers. Richwales 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Hi Rich, hey I noticed that there are 3 [edit] links sitting thus in the Majority opinion section: (plus a third [edit] [edit] [edit] condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction when I see this page. I tried once to eliminate them, but without success. They are the edit links for Facts, Issue, and Majority opinion. Don't know if you see them too, or if you will have any better luck at eliminating them then I did. Likly you have already tried to fix it, anyway, just FYI. Thanks, Brimba 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a bug in Wikipedia's style sheets. Those "[edit]" things are generated automatically, and I don't think there's any way to rearrange (much less delete) them. I've seen similar problems with some other articles. Richwales 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Splarka "fixed" this problem by assigning the images to individual sections and ending each section with <br clear="both">. While this does indeed take care of the [edit] link issue, it seems less than fully satisfactory to me, because it makes the images look like they "belong" to the individual sections, rather than to the article as a whole. Richwales 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Romanian numerals

Hi Rich. Thanks for "inspiring" me: I wrote Romanian numerals, please have a look. Also feel free to smooth out my wriggly English, or fix any mistakes that might still lurk in the article. Cheers! — AdiJapan ☎ 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was getting there. I just added the distributive numerals earlier. In the meantime I keep descovering things I wasn't aware of... For instance, today I realized that in English grammar the numerals are not recognized as a separate part of speech! In Romanian they are, although in a sentence numerals act as a kind of noun, adjective, or pronoun. — AdiJapan ☎ 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right. What I don't like about "Romanian numbers" is that it is misleading. It sounds as if Romanians had a different sort of arithmetics or something like that.

I think I was influenced by the fact that, in Romanian, numeral (plural: numerale) means the part of speech that expresses numbers. Also, the word număr only means the mathematical concept of English number, it doesn't inlcude the meaning number name. On top of that, the PDF listed as reference in the article calls these words "numerals".

I also thought about calling the article "Romanian number names", but it sounds a bit strange, and there is no article in Wikipedia with such a name.

If you think "Romanian numbers" is the best choice for the contents then I agree with moving it there. — AdiJapan ☎ 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Noua Dreaptă

Hey Rich,

I have the page on my watchlist, so I'll revert and drop them a vandal warning next time they do it. Once they go the extra mile I can report them here. Adios! —Khoikhoi 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I have a feeling they'd just try to delete it though. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, this word is not in the dictionaries (yet). Technically, "manelizare" (from manele, a rather new music genre in Romania) means the action of spreading or supporting this sort of music, and the result of such action. But there is more to this word. To start with, the word itself was created by those who fight against this music, considering it a sign of low moral value, as reflected in the lyrics of manele. More generally, "manelizare" means the process of social decadence, by which the mentality and behavior of the young people deteriorate under the influence of manele.

Personally I am glad I don't need to hear this sort of music. This doesn't mean I support the extremist views of Noua Dreaptă though. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

Hi Rich. I've finished writing Romanian numbers, at least in a first form. Last added were the ordinal numbers which you were waiting for.

If you find mistakes feel free to correct them, like you've already done a few times. Also, if there are things that ought to be there and aren't, please let me know. Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I got your message, thanks. I will make those additions when I have some more time, hopefully in the near future. I guess I just have to many plans, with ro.wp getting most of my attention. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

naming immigrants

Hello, While I don't mean to reopen old wounds, I do want to standardize wikipedia's usage. I have indeed read and commented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration); I posted a comprehensive case for "illegal immigrant" versus other proposed terms several days ago. "illegal immigrant" seemed to be emerging as the consensus on many pages (i frequent a lot of the immigration pages) since before I even started editing. Please feel free to respond to the case that I have made at the naming conventions site. Thanks! TheKaplan 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Caloundra

Howdy,

Most people and locals to the area pronounciate Caloundra as Cah-lown-dra. Hope this may be of help, Cheers --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*nods*, second one does rhyme with downtown. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Richwales, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! —Xyrael / 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ho, sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm not quite sure what is going on with my recent run of VP approvals, but I'm going over it all again now. Please let me know if it still doesn't work; thanks. —Xyrael / 16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the software looks at a different page, which I'm pretty sure you are on. Please give it a shot and let me know if it fails; thanks. —Xyrael / 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but are you using 1.2.2 or 1.3? Thanks. —Xyrael / 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have been on the userlist twice, which may be confusing the program. I've removed both and then readded you; please try again. Thanks. —Xyrael / 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to admit defeat for now. We are having a lot of issues with moderation right now, so please check back when AmiDaniel wakes up. Thank you. —Xyrael / 08:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I'd like to suggest that you contact AmiDaniel, who should be able to work some magic to get it to work. Sorry for the delay. —Xyrael / 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Clair's gone

I know you are also a friend of ClairSamoht, so I thought I would let you know that Clair said goodbye on my Talk page tonight (under section Frog, I think it is number 16). He is gone from WP. I am quite sad about all this. I think I will send him an email in a week or two, but need to think what to say first. I am watching Johnny Appleseed now (his only GA). I am not sure what the missing verb is either. Take care and sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Ruhrfisch 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi Richwales, I also had difficulties with VandalProof crashing upon start-up last night. However, I persisted, and on my third try, it did not crash and worked correctly. There is clearly a problem that needs to be fixed, but one can seemingly work around it for now. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, If you have 'never been able to start VP, perhaps it uses too much resources for your computer. It does seem to be very resource intensive. But then I don't know how powerful your computer is, how much ram etc. so maybe it is something else. I'm sorry to hear you can't work around the problem. :-( --BostonMA ^talk 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I get the login failed error as well. But eventually a screen comes up with a login link embedded on the page. I then re-login using that link, I don't use the normal Wikipedia login. Then I usually go 100% cpu for what seems like about a minute. Then, VP either crashes or I get in. By the way, when I start VP, I studiously avoid touching anything. I don't even want VP to repaint its window, so I don't touch other applications that might obscure VP. I also keep a minimized version of task manager running next to my clock, and I only touch VP after the CPU goes back down near zero. So perhaps I have found the majic touch, but forgot that others may try things differently. --BostonMA ^talk 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I can't help you. Sorry for the time not so well spent. --BostonMA ^talk 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This may be of interest

Hi Rich, I believe what you are looking for is this case: Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New York, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), it’s a US Supreme Court case, but due to the time it originated, not always easy to find unless you run over to the Law library. Its worth the trip. Take care, Brimba 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I don't think I've violated 3RR unless the rule is construed to mean any 24 hour span instead of one calendar day, in which case, I might have. But, removing spam and vandalism, as far as I can tell from the rule, is not a violation of 3RR anyway. Chicken Wing 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he is vandalizing, but I don't appreciate being stuck now having to argue this matter or having my account name defamed. The fact remains that I was removing spam added by a determined spammer, which is vandalism. I don't think I could seriously be in danger of violating the 3RR policy unless I had notice that the link in question was not vandalism. I've removed so many links to Dread Central at this point, with almost no resistance, that there was no reason for me to believe that one user would suddenly pop off. Chicken Wing 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wong Kim Ark edit glitch.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wong Kim Ark edit glitch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your tireless work preventing vandalism. I can't understand why anybody would want to vandalize some of these articles. --Metzenberg 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to troll around for lehakholis (Aramaic word, you might be able to guess what it means). --Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rich. The Haredi Jews themselves actually dislike the term "ultraorthodox" from what I understand. Thanks for your comments. I was asking you because you have done a great job in keeping vandals off some pages I work on. No need to be Jewish to comment on and understand this. --Metzenberg 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

JPEG to PNG

Regarding our previous conversation about Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.jpg, I note that you have created a PNG version at Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.png. However, it is clear that all you have done is to resave the JPEG file as a PNG file. This is not sufficient to address the problem, as the image still contains visible compression artifacts and is not efficiently stored (i.e., you have saved the image in 8-bit grayscale, but the image has only 1 bit of colour information). In short, the PNG file is of no better quality and is just as large as the original JPEG.

Please recall that the {{badJPEG}} cleanup tag reads, "If possible, please upload a PNG or SVG version of this image, derived from a non-JPEG source so that it doesn't contain any compression artifacts (or with existing artifacts removed)" (emphasis in original). If you don't understand what this means, or don't know how to remove JPEG compression artifacts yourself, then it is better to ask for help or to wait for someone else to perform the conversion than to attempt to perform the conversion yourself.

I have now uploaded a correct conversion to Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.png. However, please take my advice for similar situations in the future. –Psychonaut 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Namingchart.PNG

Do you know how to make charts? I put it in a pic because I'm quite bad with the formatting of them. Epson291 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'll have a go at it again. (I already tried) But if you have time (and are inclined), please try to do it, I can give you the source of the chart. Epson291 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, emailed you, if you want it formatted, email me back, i'll send it in html/.doc Epson291 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look's great, great job! Epson291 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian stress

I agree that most of the NNPE article is unsourced but it is largely based on the phonological and phonetic data available in each of the phonology pages and sections for the languages in question. That's certainly no excuse for not sourcing everything but adding what (as apparent with your comment in Talk:Indian English) is uncontestedly original research is a step in the the opposite direction from where we want to go. As such, I am keeping an eye on edits like this and removing them. If you find a reputable source, by all means, use it and include it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Broderick

Thanks for adding the info to the Carlfred Broderick page, I see that he is your father in law. He was a good family friend, and has been missed dearly. I am also LDS and in CA. I have been doing some work on various LDS pages for some time. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to wp.Isaac Crumm 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dreapta / stînga

Hi. Very interesting question indeed.

I think the use of nouns dreapta and stînga (for political wings) in the feminine instead of masculine has at least two reasons. One could be that traditionally the right- and left-hand sides are called using the feminine forms, possibly, as you said, because the word for hand is feminine, or because the word for side (parte) is feminine, although it may be because the masculine form is reserved for the feet/legs: dreptul means the right foot or leg. The other reason I can see is the fact that the use of these words for political wings originated in France, where the feminine, not the masculine, is used: fr:Droite (politique) and fr:Gauche (politique). In French, the choice between masculine and feminine was probably made for similar reasons (la main droite -- the right hand); for the political meaning I suppose one of the original wordings was l'aile droite (the right wing, where aile is feminine).

These reasons must be combined with the linguistic principle that homonymy is naturally avoided, especially when the potential homonyms are used in similar contexts. The French masculine noun le droit also means the right as in "the legal right", and since law and politics are often discussed together, confusion was avoided by using different gramatical genders. The same applies for the corresponding loan translation into Romanian: drept, dreptul.

The etymology considerations are mostly my own thoughts, but at least the meanings of the words can be checked in the dictionaries:

• Romanian drept: Meaning B is about the left/right direction, including the political meaning under "3. (Substantivat, f. art.; în viaţa politică)". Meaning D is about the legal right.
• Romanian stîng: Political meaning under 3.
• French droit, droite: The political meaning seems to date from as early as 1793: "les députés de la droite de l'Assemblée".
• French gauche: The political meaning goes back to 1790.
• English etymology: right (see the second entry)
• English etymology: left, giving about the same years for the first use in French.

I hope I was of at least some help. I tried to find reliable sources about the use of these terms in Romanian, but was unable to. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

You may want to see the discussion at User talk:Tone#Smallville music first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re; Romanian Communist Party edits

Apologies for the incorrect edit, I have added language tags to that article, and later today I will search for the other articles containing 'comunist' and derivatives to tag or correct too. Rjwilmsi 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan

Saw your post in the Moldovan language article. What cable system has Moldovan news? Thanks. --Chris S. 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-native pronunciations of English

There has been plenty of discussion on the talk page. For two years, there have been complaints (not only from me!) that the article is a morass of original research and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. Putting up tags requesting sources has not worked. The original research simply has to go. —Angr 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Angr, that is simply not true. I read discussion archive and there is only one complain about lack of sources. Yours.Errorneous 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anchor Baby" dispute

Hi, Richwales. Concerning the present RFC on Anchor Baby...I feel a compromise indicating both usages is best for Wikipedia. My personal opinon of the term is I don't like the term nor would I use it in conversation. But, my opinion besides, I still feel no consensus exists presently that term is pejorative. I want to personally thank you for the opportunity to try to work this situation out - I am at a loss as to how to resolve a dispute when one of the party's to that dispute will accept nothing but his opinion (despite evidence to the contrary) rather than compromise or consensus building. If you have any other suggestion out of this impasse let me know and I will consider the option. --Northmeister 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think your arbitration proposal in light of the personal attack made on myself through parable and an admins participation in it afterwards are worthy causes for Arbcom. The refusal of two editors to actually engage in discussion is causing the current impasse. I am open to revision of my edits, of taking them out if consensus feels they need to be, of adding something else if it works better to balance the article. The block made did give me a chance to reflect on WP:3RR and the changes made thereto since I had last read the material. Reverting anothers edits is not wrong - doing so excessively in short period of time or doing so while discussion of those edits is ongoing (which the admin did on this occasion) is not helpful. I am happy with our original compromise. You've been fair minded and have sought a solution. I've tried to hold up Wikipedia's standard of NPOV, despite my belief that the term is most often pejorative.

We came to an agreement. The agreement was implemented. Another user added material making the article once again unbalanced. I attempted to represent the other half. Objections were made. I asked what was the specific nature of the objections (related to OR, asserting ourselves as linguists, not supported by sourcees) so that I could address them. Immediatly the material was removed by the admin editor into talk (who having had a history here should of left it alone until we discussed the problem with the edits) while keeping other editors material. I removed the other editors material (as it was within the edit removed already) to address that as well (to keep fairness). Instead of engaging in discussion the other two engage in a personal attack through parable (one directly - the other by not only refusing to remove the attack as an admin but by commenting on it afterwards and then trying to give a novel interpretation of its contents)...Another admin jumped in when I reverted to the original edits (based on the assumption that the objections were not credible considering there was no response to my questions) and then made two additional edits (not reverts) trying to cover the objections made after the original (namely 'descriptive' as a term etc.). That is when I was 'warned' for possible 3RR violation, I objected to this as not appropriate considering I took a full day off (per suggestion) from the article - waited for a response to my questions of the objection (without answer) and tried to address the concerns of the two editors. This block was then amended to include 'edit warring' which I agreed was the case involving the other two as well having started with the admin editor. I also agreed not to revert there again except as to revert myself and let the article stand without my edits and the other editors until discussion is complete. I asked for an apology for the parable and a removal by the editor who wrote it or by the admin who participated with further comments and lack of action. I got no action - so I removed it myself. - I felt it necessary to make a public record of what has occured in case we do go to Arbcom. The situation is grave - admin abuse and personal attacks; failure to discuss objections etc.

I am still open to revision or to agreeing to some sort of removal of my edits in questions if any editor engages me in a civil discouse over the matter. I would like to get away from this subject satisfied that the article is truly NPOV. Sorry for the long post. But, I am placing one thing in your hands. If you agree with the other two on the note of my edits and think they should be removed - then I'll stand by your decision. If you feel the material warrants coverage but in a truncated manner then I will work with you and anyone who engages me politely and in a civil manner to do that. If you feel the present article (minus the one section maintained) is best - I will support that decision. Then I would like to take a long break from this whole process and move on to other things. --Northmeister 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Moldovan Flag Reverse Side.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moldovan Flag Reverse Side.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The ArbCom makes it clear that they wish parties to engage in dispute resolution, including mediation, before they will hear a csse.[1] We went through an important stage of dispute resolution, an RfC. How would you summarize the input gained from the RfC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the RfC resulted in a consensus then I suggest we go back to it. Holding an RfC and then ignoring its input is pointless. Dismissing mediation without trying it is not helpful either. If the question boils down to whether using "common sense" qualifies as original research, then we might post a new RfC asking that question. It might be simpler to ask that question on Wikipedia talk:No original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:No original research#Defining terms by interpreting quotations ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On the RFC...What is the consensus spoken of? Maybe we could work from there onward. The two issues before us are Ramsey's and my own edits beyond what I believed to be the consensus compromise. If we can clear these two matters up - then that would help in moving forward. I am a consensus builder and believe in that process. My position is not die hard stuck in the mud on this - so there is room to compromise on my part anyway. We just need to steer clear of the personal stuff. What I propose as a last measure before any further action is taken (and I support going to Arbcom on this or mediation if that is best to try first) is that you and I work together to try to combine Ramsey's edits and my own into a workable couple of paragraphs portraying the opening sentences or at least we as editors try this on the talk page. I am open to getting this past us and moving on to other things. --Northmeister 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Citizenship of India

Hi, I introduced a new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship#Overseas_Citizenship Please check it. I felt this is consistent and clear. Mugunth 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eureka Noche de Sueños Oregon flag.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eureka Noche de Sueños Oregon flag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dumneata - impolite?

Oh. I must say I am surprised. Never thought people would argue about it. Thank you for pointing it out, as I usually do not check talk pages much. The usage I have always seen with dumneata was not impolite, which is only the title of the footnote you quotes. Its usage is just deprecated enough to be perceived as a less polite way of addressing someone. Bluntly put, young people use it to address gypsy florists, or older people pertaining to a lower social category. I will try to find a source for it. --Danielsavoiu (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that I practically never use dumneata. I suppose I would use it towards an older person (say in their 50's or above) if I were angry or had something to criticize about their behavior. That would be a sign for them that there is a reason I show them less respect than their age would require, because the norm is to use dumneavoastră. On the other hand, at the same time it also means that I don't want to be so rude as to go all the way down to using tu (although many people do that when in anger) so I'm keeping a non-zero level of politeness. I would also use dumneata when talking to an old person in a rural area, where dumneavoastră might seem too formal and cold.

I'd say the most frequent usage comes from people in their 60's or above, especially if they had some contact with the old (pre-Communist) elite. I heard that the use of dumneavoastră was actually imposed by the Communists, at least for a while, like they did with the use of tovarăşul / tovarăşa instead of domnul / doamna. (I don't have a source for that.) This doesn't mean to say that dumneavoastră was a Communist invention (or else it wouldn't be so much used today); it was used at least as early as the 19th century --- I found it in Ion Creangă's tales --- and it could be even older, for instance it is used repeatedly in a translation of Neagoe Basarab's works, originally written in Old Church Slavonic at the beginning of the 16th century --- I trust they wouldn't use new words in the translation of an old text.

I don't think the speaker's or the listener's gender makes any difference in the use of dumneata, although somehow I think I hear it more often said by men. It could mean that men are more adamant in keeping the old tradition while women might be more adaptable. It could also mean that men afford more easily to speak less politely. Or it could just be my own impression --- it's hard to have accurate statistics when the use is so limited.

You might want to read the essay "Tragerea de şireturi" about polite pronouns in Romanian and their use and misuse, written by a young Romanian poet who also writes a lot about language usage (she studied English and Romanian literatures and languages at the Bucharest University). In the essay she says that dumneata is intermediate between tu and dumneavoastră (see the second paragraph). The whole essay might be interesting for you, as it talks about the differences between English and Romanian in expressing politeness, although I don't totally agree with what she says.

I noticed Danielsavoiu's additions to Romanian grammar and I intend to adjust them here and there, but right now I don't have much time. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Richwales. The word condescending is the most adequate, given the situation, and I am sure it will work wonders...

To answer your questions, if a man and a woman are socially acquainted in the sense that they haven't just seen each other once and have just been introduced, they generally would use tu. The polite pronouns are generally used when talking to complete strangers or people one has met only briefly, or in formal situations. An exception is, as you have pointed out, age difference. If a girl in her twenties whould address a man in his forties or over, I'd say they would prefer using the polite pronoun. If two people, no matter their age, are romantically involved, they will, of course, use tu...

Regarding dumneata, people that are in their early thirties, or under, would avoid using it, even when referring to an older person, preferring the plural form. There are, of course, exceptions, if the speaker is determined to stress he is superior to the one he speaks to, or just is condescending, as you have pointed out, the usage of dumneata indicating that they conform to the rules of polite conversation, due to it being classified as a polite pronoun, but are not entirely thrilled about having to use dumneavoastră. Quite a long explanation to say little, I'm afraid, but at least, I hope, it's comprehensive... --Danielsavoiu (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Allison mack is still engaged

Hi, I got your message asking about Allison's engagement and as far as i know,they are still engaged.If you visit this link (http://www.allisonmack.com/2008/02/11/my-dog/) ,you will find that they are (still) engaged. Apparently,she is delaying the marriage.

Ciao

That entry you cited from Allison's blog actually doesn't say she's still engaged. As I read it, she's saying that when she was eight years old, she imagined that when she was 25, she would be planning her wedding and getting ready to have kids in five years — whereas the reality (now that she really is 25) is that she's running screaming from the idea of marriage and is barely able to visualize the concept of having kids. No specific mention of Peter or anyone else in her life; nothing concrete about any wedding plans, even plans put on the back burner. Or were you referring to something else on this page, or is there some other reason why you're sure she really is talking about marrying Peter and I'm just totally missing it? Richwales (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorian

Hi Rich, Thanks for the note, I have been on a Wiki-break and missed the edit war on Anchor baby. I see that User:Psychohistorian has remained true to course. Brimba (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)