User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Bill Kaulitz

Hi, could you please unprotect this page redirecting to Tokio Hotel made by you in december? It isn't supposed to be redirected acording to the rules of rederections, 'cause they're no the same thing. Thanks for your time, --Epiovesan (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule that says redirects have to be to the same thing. On the contrary, one of the types of redirects listed at WP:R is "People who are members of a group, organization, ensemble or team" with the example "Eric Dill redirects to The Click Five". This is the same situation. —Angr 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

voiceless w

Per [1], might we not add SAE in addition to Scottish English, perhaps with a note on distribution? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We might, but in the Atlas of North American English, only about half of the Southerners (approximately the older half) surveyed still had the whine/wine contrast. I kind of don't see the point of adding a dialect where the phoneme is rapidly becoming marginal in addition to a dialect where it's still firmly present. —Angr 09:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rhotic accents page

I noticed that you did not agree with my addition to the page on rhoticity. I had said that it should be noted that the vowel in (Queen's English) bird, girl, kerb is not an /r/ sound. You removed this, considering what I had written to be obvious. It might be obvious to a linguist or to someone from with a rhotic accent, but the vast majority of people in England do not know this. They would consider the vowel in bird to be sounding an /r/. I feel that the current article on rhoticity is too technical, so I inserted this just to make it clear to those who are not specialists. Do you see what I mean? Regards. Epa101 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just the obviousness, it's a question of encyclopedic tone. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article to say "Maybe some people think the situation is different, but in fact it isn't" about any topic. It's an encyclopedia's job to tell people the facts, not to speculate about possible misconceptions some people might have. —Angr 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of the rhoticity article currently has a tag on to say that the article is too complex for a non-specialist. Encyclopedias are also supposed to be easily understandable, or at least make an effort to give an introduction for a layperson. The current article for rhoticity does not do that. How are we supposed to talk about presence and absence of an /r/ if we do not define what an /r/ is at the start? Epa101 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion here on this subject. Epa101 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vegan

What in the hell does all that junk have to do with photos? 68.54.163.153 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a metaphor. —Angr 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a huge problem with the metaphor. Under US copyright law, and the copyright law of pretty much any place that has copyright law, fair use of a copyrighted image does not in any way make something non-free. A better metaphor would be like if you had a low-fat potluck dinner. I might bring a dish to that dinner that used real butter, but a small amount. The fact that I used an ingredient that is associated with high-fat dishes does not make the dish itself high in fat, any more than measured application of fair use makes an encyclopedia (or a research paper, for that matter) non-free. And just like how fair use of copyrighted images is the only way to adequately cover certain topics, for some dishes it is simply impossible to adequately prepare them without real butter.

Then again, I consider vegans to be extremists as well, so maybe your metaphor is apt after all ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree that including nonfree content and then hiding behind "fair use" claims means the content is still free. Wikipedia is currently not a free-content encyclopedia, and never will be as long as there is any non-free content in it. —Angr 21:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so the difference is in how we parse the phrase "Free encyclopedia." I do not think that "Free encyclopedia" implies "encyclopedia that contains only free content", I think it implies "encyclopedia that is (legally) free to access." heh, and the vegan metaphor once again makes a lot of sense, with a slight tweak: an "Ethical Pot Luck Dinner," to a vegan, might mean there are no animal products used; whereas to me it would imply a dinner using ingredients produced locally, sustainably, and humanely.

In any case, I trust that, while your opinion is against any and all fair use, that as an admin you will faithfully uphold the NFCC criteria as understood by consensus. (I'd be a hypocrite if I suspected you would behave otherwise, as my personal opinion on dealing with vandal-only accounts is different from Wikipedia consensus, yet I attempt to conform to the consensus procedure for dealing with it at all times) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:FlockeNuremberg.jpg

May I ask why you have put this article up for deletion? I just added information pertaining to the poster and its significance to the article and was in the process of updating the "Purpose" field in the fair use rationale template when your IFD template caused an edit conflict. I think the IFD was highly premature and unnecessary; you merely could have asked me to add the pertinent information and I would have done so. María (habla conmigo) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the rationale as well as responded to your reason for deletion, which is now null. This could have been taken care of without involving the powers that be if you had contacted me directly, mind. María (habla conmigo) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the rationale isn't valid and that the image should be deleted. The image brings no added value to the article that couldn't be gotten with a free image of the bear herself. —Angr 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no free image of the bear currently available. Trust me, I've looked. It's either this (an advertisement) or a picture of some kid wearing a Flocke hat. What information is missing from the rationale to make it valid? María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No free image available doesn't mean the image couldn't be replaced with a free image. Nothing is missing from the rationale; no rationale can make this image compliant, unless you write a section in the article about this specific ad. —Angr 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe an entire section in the article is necessary to prove its significance. I've already added info (with a ref) to the article regarding the ad in the "Fame" section. Is that enough to ensure it won't be deleted? María (habla conmigo) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think so, but you do. We'll have to wait for others to comment on the IFD to find out. —Angr 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages of the United States

You claim that "de facto official" is a contradiction in terms. The meaning of this is that although no language is deemed "official" in law, special status is conferred on one language in various ways through legal means and through government practice.

In any case, I provided a source, of which a preview is available on Google Books. The authors were professors of law and English at the University of North Dakota, writing in a volume of academic essays. Your edit summary does not do anything to address the credibility of the source. Joeldl (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can say "English has been called the 'de facto official language' by Smith and Bloggs" or something else to indicate that the wording is that of the source and not of Wikipedia's authors, who would of course never be guilty of saying something so stupid as "de facto official language". —Angr 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think we have heard it said that "the United States has no official language" so often in the official English debate in the U.S. that it's easy to lose sight of the fact that when we ask a question like "What is the official language of ...", what we want to know, just as much as whether some statute calls such or such language official, is: What language are the laws written in? What language does the government function in? Are there any guarantees for that language provided in the law? I have encountered the notion of de facto official language previously, and the idea does not shock me. It's not a stupid idea.

I provided one source, but if you look at this Google Scholar search you will see that this statement has been made many times. Here is another example: [2] (Renford Reese, associate professor of political science at CSU Pomona). This view is well-known enough that, in my opinion, in order to treat this assertion as anything less than fact (it is, after all, treated by the UND academics as beyond question), a reliable source explicitly rejecting it is required. The statement that "the United States has no official language" will not be enough, since this can easily be interpreted as meaning a de jure official language. In fact, Reese states this in the same paragraph as the fact that English is the de facto official language of the U.S. Joeldl (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, "de jure official language" is a tautology, like "unmarried bachelor". By definition, an official language is de jure. That's what official language means, and that's why "de facto official language" is a contradiction in terms, like "married bachelor". "Official language" does not mean "a language the laws are written in" or "a language the government functions in", it means "a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory". I know people often use the phrase "de facto official language" when what they mean is "unofficial national language", but there's no reason for such sloppiness. As I said, we can say that English has been described as such by so-and-so, but there's no reason we should present a misleading and self-contradictory statement as fact, just because other people do. —Angr 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that in order for a language to be official, it has to have been declared such by statute, and that is why you believe "de jure official language" is a tautology. I concede that "official language", by itself, will usually be taken to be synonymous with "de jure official language". I think a better analogy than bachelor is marriage. There are "common-law marriages" and what might be called "solemnized marriages". In most circumstances, "solemnized marriage" would be viewed as a tautology. However, this would not be the case if it were being explicitly opposed to common-law marriage.

Since "de facto official language" gets over 200 hits on Google Books, many of them statements that English is the de facto official language of the United States, this position cannot be dismissed as idiocy. Also, since it has been widely disseminated, we can expect that if there is serious disagreement with it, there should be some trace of that other than on Wikipedia. Joeldl (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no disagreement with the intent behind the statement (namely that English is the unofficial national language of the U.S.), just with its wording. —Angr 05:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The specific wording in question has been used numerous times in reliable sources. The meaning of "official" as opposed to "national" is that its status has been established in various offical (i.e. state) practices, albeit implicitly. If there is really something wrong with the wording, then because it is common enough, it should have been criticized somewhere. Perhaps it has been, and then we can present the information with the appropriate qualifications. Joeldl (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording "very unique" gets a whole lot hits at Google Books too, that still doesn't make it felicitous. But the more I think about it, the more I realize there's another problem with Wikipedia's calling English the "de facto official language" of the U.S., besides the fact that the phrase has no meaning, and that's adhering to NPOV. If our article calls English the "de facto official language", readers will interpret that as supporting the POV of those who would make it the "de jure official language". After all, if English is already de facto the official language, why not go ahead and make it legally so? So to be neutral in our reporting, it's probably best not to use the phrase "official language" at all, even if qualified by "de facto". But if we must use the meaningless phrase, at least we have to clearly attribute it to its source to make it clear that this opinion is not Wikipedia's own. —Angr 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear whether admitting it's the de facto official language is more favourable to those in favour or those opposed to making it de jure. In many cases, people say it's unnecessary to make it the de jure official language because it already has that status de facto. In any case, this is very much like reporting on climate change: there are some more or less objective facts, and then there are questions like "What should we do?" This falls into the objective fact category, except for your claim that there is something wrong with the language used to express it.

So long as there is not a reliable source expressing an opinion contrary to this, and this has been said numerous times in reliable sources, I don't see any justification for saying it is just an opinion.

For the reasons I've given, I don't think "de facto official" is an oxymoron or bad English. In any case, it is different from using "very unique" somewhere because there is substantive content in the statement that English is the de facto official language of the United States.

I don't see how you expect me to contradict your assertion that all of these reliable sources are wrong or making an incorrect use of language. Normally, statements from reliable sources can be reported as is. Joeldl (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this is different from saying "very unique" because in both cases the person has expressed themselves badly, but you know what they're trying to say. Since Wikipedia can be constantly edited and improved, there's no reason to insist on poor wording for no other reason than that others have used the same poor wording in print. If we have to mention the special status of English in the U.S. at all (and frankly, I'm not convinced we do), we can say directly what the people using the unfortunate phrase are attempting to say, namely that English is the language used for virtually all public discourse in the U.S. If you insist, we can even go on to say that it has been described as the "de facto official language" (in quotes) by this, that and the other reliable source. —Angr 06:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth getting input from other editors on this. I've started a new section on the talk page of the article. Please respond there. Joeldl (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image talk:Wolfgangsmith.jpg

Hi! I've seen you deleted the Image:Wolfgangsmith.jpg I had uploaded. I was confused about it, but after reading thoroughly the links on non-free images, I think I understand the reason, so no hurt feelings there. However, I don't think you should have deleted its talk page. According to CSD G8, which you provided as a rationale, talk pages containing "deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere" (as that one surely isn't) are explicitly excluded from deletion, having to be kept for archival purposes. Furthermore, according to {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, which I had in fact added to the image page, these archived talk pages should not only be kept, but the reason for deletion stated there, and the whole discussion wrapped between {{Rtd}} and {{Rb}}. Why is this important? Because it not only adds those talk pages to Category:Talk pages of the deleted replaceable fair use images, but it also allows eventual re-uploaders to know in detail what happened. As things are, with administrators deleting talk pages around without noticing that CSD G8's has exceptions, not only is that category severely underpopulated, what shouldn't be the case, but those eventual re-uploaders are also welcomed by a single line of extremely terse information. And not only terse, but cryptic even, at least for those who, like me, are new to Wikipedia editing and even newer to Wikipedia media uploading.

So, in future, when deleting images, please look at their talk pages and, if there is something of documental importance there, please keep them by following the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} route, okay? It's worth the effort! -- alexgieg (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the talk page because there wasn't any actual discussion there. You were the only one to contribute to the talk page, and you can't have a discussion with only one participant! But since you asked, I restored the talk page and wrapped it in {{subst:rtd}} and {{subst:rb}}. —Angr 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... well, yes, true, although I think the procedure calls for the administrator to first reply with his reason to delete the image, then wait a little for the uploader's reply etc., then delete it, then wrap and archive the talk page. But thanks for restoring it! Once I get a free image to replace the non-free one (or a license to use the original one freely) I plan re-uploading with the same name, so that its talk can tell its "history" of going from non-free to free. It's a good thing to preserve, IMHO. :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Celts as Barbarians?

Your thoughts and/or comments are requested here. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you say this?

From FAC page on RCC you stated this: "I'm not a Catholic (though I'd probably convert if I thought they'd let me in),". I was just wondering why you thought they would not let you in - to my knowledge everyone is welcome. NancyHeise (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they'd be terribly happy about the fact that I'm a man who's married to another man. :-) —Angr 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You would not be allowed to take communion but you would be allowed to come to Church and be part of the congregation. There are a number of people who have divorced and remarried who are also not allowed to come to communion but (happily) they are there anyway and I believe that when I go to communion, I am allowed to take it for those who can not and that they will receive the graces of communion because I have asked for them to. Many Catholics do exactly that when they go to communion. They have children and friends who are divorced and remarried or who live in same sex partnerships or who have committed some crime or other mortal sin (for which they have not repented) that prevents them from receiving communion and the Catholics who can receive remember them when receiving saying "Please let the graces of this Holy Communion be also for x and x". Many significant people who participate in church ministry are homosexual. Our Church teachings do not allow homosexuals to become priests but they also tell us that homosexual people are God's children who are to be treated with respect and love. That doesnt make all Catholics good and holy and within every parish you will meet many people who are really beautiful on the inside and also some others (not many) who have a long way to go before I would call them beautiful on the inside. We politely consider all of us, however ugly on the inside or not, as being on "the journey". I will include you on my list of "x and x's" when I take communion. You seem like a very nice man who may already be farther down the road to "beautiful on the inside" than many others like me who are allowed to take communion. Maybe you could pray for me too. NancyHeise (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will! And as long as I stay a "schismatic and heretic" Anglican, I'm allowed to take Communion – and not just in Anglican churches, but also in Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland churches and Old Catholic churches (virtually unknown in the U.S. but occasionally encountered over here). This evening, in fact, I went to Communion at an EKD church just down the street (normally I'd go to the Anglican church on Sunday morning, but my husband's sick so I want to stay home tomorrow morning to take care of him). But as much as I like the idea of being part of the most direct descendant of the church Jesus founded through Peter, rather than one of the groups that broke away from it, I'm not prepared to give up a denomination that does allow me to take Communion in exchange for one that doesn't. But I still consider myself part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and sometimes I'll even say a Rosary or a Chaplet of Divine Mercy. —Angr 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was baptised into the Episcopalian Church in 7th grade. I have only happy memories of my church where I babysat for the priest's kids and was involved in a really fun youth group. I used to think that the Catholic Church was really stuck up for its rules and beliefs and thought the rules were really stupid too. Until I had my religious experience and now I believe that John Paul II was telling us the truth and that the Catholic Church is the only church providing a certain level of truth that others are not. There is a kind of love Jesus wanted us to find that we can not find if we are not chaste. We can't have sex with everyone we love but Jesus told us to love -really love people. There is a love that is higher than sex and more beautiful that people can not find if they are always giving in to the "flesh" and that is what the Catholic Church is leading people to with all it's "stupid" rules. While we all believe that Jesus is present in Christian communities Catholic or not and that he can save and pour out graces in these places, we can't get upset with the Catholic Church for doing what Jesus may exactly want them to be doing. Peace to you and your husband, I hope he feels better and don't be upset with me for sharing - I really do like you and would like to be friends. NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that sex in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship that has been blessed by God is unchaste. And the Catholic Church has a lot of rules I disagree with that have nothing to do with sex! If I were ever to convert (which would only happen if, God forbid, my husband were to die, and if I decided afterward that I was willing to be abstinent), I would have to be able to either change my mind on those issues, or at least keep my points of disagreement to myself. But back to the original point of this thread: I seriously doubt I would be allowed to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults if it was clear I wasn't going to be allowed Communion at the end anyway. And even if I were allowed to go through the Rite, why would I bother? I'm already allowed to attend Catholic services as long as I don't take Communion. —Angr 07:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my hope that you will consider the possibility that there is something more than sexual love that is every bit more than satisfying if you think that is what God's will is for you. Since I am not God, I will not try to tell you what that is. However, I will tell you that Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults welcomes all who profess the faith, go to confession, and intend to try to be a Christian. There are a lot of chaste homosexuals within the Catholic Church and yes, some of them have former partners who have died and they have decided to be abstinent. One of my elderly male friends is a former practicing homosexual. We belong to the same prayer group and he is very much in love with Jesus and I absolutely think he is so very wonderful and beautiful. He is happy to be chaste and to spend any sexual energy in prayer instead of in practice. NancyHeise (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my husband is 12 years younger than me and in better health, the situation is unlikely to arise. But as long as he and I are together (which will be as long as we are both alive, since at the Blessing of our Union we vowed before God to be each other's lifelong partner "until we are parted by death"), I can't promise to "try to be a Christian" by the Catholic Church's definition of that term, since their definition includes intending to avoid all sexual contact except within a heterosexual marriage. But I already do try to be a Christian by my own understanding of that term, so for now I'll stay an Anglican. There are lots of things about the Catholic Church that appeal to me (if I ever had to be rushed to the hospital I would certainly request to be taken to a Catholic one!), but at this point in my life I can't agree to the membership requirements. —Angr 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Love covers a multitude of sins. We are all sinners in one way or another. The sins of human weakness are less serious than the sins of human cruelty. If we keep the Ten Commandments and do no more that only makes us balanced out, not in the "red" (using financial terms) - we are required to produce good fruit - to do something good that helps others. Eternal life begins today." A priest I love very much (and can't and would never have sex with) that I pray for often, said these things. Perhaps your sin of human weakness is going to be balanced out by other good things you do - your love that covers a multitude of sins. God bless you. NancyHeise (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please think about how you would feel if someone referred to your love for your husband as a sin of human weakness. —Angr 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Love is never a sin. But there are some ways of expressing it that are more advantageous to our beloved's soul than others. I think what the Church is trying to do is to help people find these other ways and they don't force those who disagree to accept it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

span.IPA at User:Angr/monobook.css

Hi, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. :)

I noticed that you still have span.IPA in your Monobook settings; as I wrote at WP:PHON's talk page, using just ".IPA" allows more flexible styling.

I'd like to convert the IPA article to use the "IPA wikitable" CSS class again, but one reason I'm hesitant to revamp the article is because you, a major contributor to Wikipedia, are still using span.IPA.

Could you kindly switch to ".IPA" in your user stylesheet, please? Thank you very much. --Kjoonlee 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this? I don't really understand how CSS's work; someone else showed me how to set up that page once, and now my changes to it are hit-and-miss. If I'm lucky, I actually succeed in doing what I want to. —Angr 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it! Thank you very much. You might need to check this link and bypass your cache. --Kjoonlee 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(Deletion log); 21:45 . . Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:PaulStanleyArtByPhilKonstantin.JPG" (I6: No justification given for non-free image)

So when I explained that the author of the work gave me permission to use the photo of his artwork on the internet, you consider that to be "No justification given for non-free image."

Would you please explain how that works.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use non-free images by permission. We use non-free images when they comply with the non-free content guideline and policy. This image was improperly tagged as PD-self, was not low-resolution, and had no non-free content rationale. —Angr 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of Jayne Marie Mansfield

The image didn't fail WP:NFCC#8 anymore. Extensive commentary is on the article. Do you think a different title for the image is needed? At least one thing is mighty sure that G4 doesn't apply here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the image does still fail WP:NFCC#8; all the arguments made at IFD back in September/October still hold, so WP:CSD#G4 applies. A new title for the image won't help. If you disagree, the place to go is WP:DRV. —Angr 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the issue to DRV as per your recommendation. Please, take a look. Should I also notify User:Nv8200p, who deleted the page earlier, and User:NAHID, who is sending e-mails to raise issues? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. —Angr 08:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Help/advise needed

I had created a .png (Image:Bir Sreshtho Medal.png) file to stand for a .jpg file (Image:Bir Sreshtho Medal.jpg) which is no more. I also had copied the image description for the original file, which claimed a fair use. It's been tagged by the User:STBotI. When I revisited the image, I was struck by the possibility that the image may not be non-free at all. It may be perfectly eleigible for an inclusion in the commons, like Image:AshokaChakra.png. Any suggestions? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Image:AshokaChakra.png is really public domain. The uploader may have taken the photograph, but the design on the medal itself is probably copyrighted, unless the design has been around for over 100 years or so. —Angr 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! May bad. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaeilge

Just wondering, why are you so into editing the Gaeilge/Irish language page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.162.101 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a topic that interests me. —Angr 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm From Caois Farriage in county Galway and I'm fluent in Irish.......if i wanted to translate english pages onto the irish wikipedia would i have to find references in Irish webpages or could i use the english ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.162.101 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You could use the English ones. The important thing is that readers be able to read the references provided, and since the number of people who can read Irish but cannot read English is vanishlingly small, you can be sure 99.9% of your readership will understand references in English. —Angr 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

German translation on ref desk.

Thanks for sprucing it up. I sort of had images of Greek temples in Germany playing in my mind. I thought the Jewish churches were called "synagogues" (sp.?) The possessive with the marriage license just didn't come to mind. I knew the thing looked odd, but couldn't quite figure what was off. That's why I played around with the preposition, which wasn't it. I don't know if you get that, too, but sometimes I have the feeling something is off, but can't put a finger on why. Then I look at it later, or someone else tells me and it's forehead slapping time. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Lisa4edit (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between a synagogue and a temple. I'm not Jewish, though, so I'm not sure. We could probably read Synagogue and Temple and find out, though. —Angr 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read them. It seems that Reform Jews and some Conservatives call their houses of worship temples, while Orthodox and most Conservatives call them synagogues. —Angr 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mariology

Hi, you did a nice job on the reorganization of the disambig page. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Angr 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)