User talk:Richwales/Archives/2008

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. — Adi Japan   ☎  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)

About Serbian territory
Dear Richard, thank you very much for leaving posts and comments on my page, i am appreciating your tries to avoid edit war, but please until dispute for Serbian province Kosovo and Metohija is finished, write that Albania is bordered with Serbia over disputed Kosovo ... I mean, Kosovo is not and probably will never be part of UN and other relevant international communities, so please respect international law until general council of UN dont bring new declaration about Kosovos illegal self declaration! I remind you that Kosovo is recognized from only 39 states members of UN, so technically more than 2/3 of modern world countries doesnt recognaze that false European state! I will not made any discussions on Albania page becouse i dont want to argue with Albanians about that question! Kosovo question is strictly question for UN and Republic of Serbia! If you already recognize Kosovo here than recognize all illegal movements on world for independence ... then i will change that Russia is bordered with South Ossetia etc ... please DONT break international law here! I remember you that by UN resolution 1244 Kosovo and Metohija is recognized as province of Serbia!

Thanks you very much! Bambyle

Kosovo is not and probably will never be part of UN and other relevant international communities???? Says WHO?
 * Kosovo is recognized from only 39 states members of UN,Major powers to be correct.
 * Kosovo question is strictly question for UN and Republic of Serbia!WRONG, what about Kosovar's?

Anyways,(I was about to leave a message when I see this dude message,kinda got me a little) I think for now let's keep it as a disputed territory.I don't know when these people will wake up from their dreams.Kosovo will not be part of Serbia,nor was really a part of mighty republic of Serbia.I would like to keep Kosovo arguments away from Albania's page.I would do my best to help you too.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo is not and probably will never be part of UN and other relevant international communities???? Says WHO?" - Serbia with Russia ... that is enough reason for "Kosovo" to never become part of UN or any International organization in which Russia and Serbia have right of Veto!

"Major powers to be correct" - since when China,Russia,India,Brasil,Spain ... are NOT major powers, who says that? Interesting one way point of wiew!

Kosovo question is strictly question for UN and Republic of Serbia!WRONG, what about Kosovar's? - of course they have right, they are still citizens of Republic of Serbia (i know at least 50 "Kosovars" who have Serbian passport and i know 3 of them who are coming to Belgrade to be operated or in North Mitrovica in Serbians hospital on budget of Republic of Serbia)!

Bambyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambyle (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Taulnat and Richard,

I understand that Taulnat is really feel bad because more than 2/3 of recognized world didn't recognize Kosovo and Metohija, but you must realize one thing, if you have that right to declare one way independence then please explain me why Serbs in Rebulic Srpska (BiH) dont have same rights as you, they also have their own president, parliament, state simbols, police, everything, they are also absolute majority in Republic of Srpska (95% of Serbs)? Can you explain me that! You cannot just brake international laws like that and then say that was not precedent, believe me 100% of Serbs would like to see Srpska which have 95% of Serbs as part of Serbia than Kosovo and Metohija which have 95% of Albanians! But George W. Bush emperor of whole world don't want to let that, in that case that is not possible to tear apart BiH but it is possible to tear up Serbia, i will remind you that just 60 years ago Albanians was miority (45%) in Kosovo and Metohija and that Kosovo and Metohija NEVER in history was an independent state!Kosovo didn't exist as any territorial unit before 1945 year and communism terror in Yugoslavia!

I dont want to argue with anyone, but we must respect international law, not law of USA,GB,Germany and other strong countries, because other 2/3 of world is much more important than 40 countries, i mean only China and India have more than 2 500 000 000 population, and those two countries doesn't recognize Kosovo, i don't want to even mention Russia which is permanent member of UN security council, Russia is asking will you ever be part of UN, and i can assure you that until Serbia recognize "Kosovo" (probably never, maybe not even than!) Russia will NEVER let you be part of any international organization in which they have right of Veto(an all important international organization). So, i am talking about respecting international law, not about Serbian or "Kosovar" politicans which use Kosovo and Metohija only for their politics points! If we recognize Kosovo, than we must recognize all 200 other worldwide movements who want to be "unchain" of their occupation!In that point, Kosovo is still strictly kind of matter of UN in the first place, because territory is disputed and later it is point of question of Serbia becouse Serbia is still recognized with Kosovo by UN, and than question for "Kosovars" because they are Serbian minority and inhabitants of province!Please dont be so malicious with your comments (mighty republic of Serbia) because it is not polite, i didn't made such comments for Albania or other countries, i have feel that you just want to provoke Serbs with such comments and i don't feel wikipedia common for that kind of arguing!

Dear Richard, i would like to made civilized and non malicious discussions about questions of Serbian disputed territory of Kosovo and Metohija, but like i told you, i would not like to made those comments on Albania talk page, because that question doesn't have anything with Serbian neighbor Albania (or maybe they have some territorial pretensions on Serbia?) but i am new on wikipeida and i still dont know where i can find common topic to discuss so if you can ,just provide me some links, but i will not make any arguing with people who don't know how to react in luck of (legal)arguments! I stopped changing anything on Albania page because i see that i cannot fight against "windmills" alone, i would really like to made civilized discussions of that international sensitive question!Sorry for that changing i will not make it anymore! But i was disappointed that even on Wikipedia people doesn't! respect anymore word of United Nations, i mean after all what was happened in past 3 months there is question do we need anymore UN now because we see that USA Bush dynasty and GB with Germany and France can do everything that they want without any consequentness!

Best wishes and regards for both of you Bambyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambyle (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

about last post Dear Richard,I know very well that you don't have any connections with Albania, i was only try to explain to you that i am not loud speaker from Serbian government, i am just guy who still believe in world order and word of United Nations, and as I know Kosovo and Metohija by the word of UN are still part of Serbia, that will be like that until Russia and China (you know very well that they are permanent member of security council with right of veto) doesn't change their position on that, but we are now witnesses of strength and powerful Russia (China also) that don't listen anymore instructions from Washington (like in Boris Yeltsin era) ... so from that point of view, that "state" of Kosovo will probably not be member of UN or other similar int. organizations in which those countries have right of veto! I have opinion that Kosovo should have status like Northern Cyprus, so they can be "independent" but they will be recognized and member of all relevant institution only when Serbia recognize them (probably never) or when they reintegrate to Serbia (which is also almost impossible), in that point that "self declaration" was very big mistake for Albanians of Kosovo, because they are now in unique vacuum of international law! They are blocked, they cannot do anything!They should continue negotiations with Serbia and find right solution, because you will agree with me, Kosovo is part of Serbia more than 1000 years and they must consult Serbia in that way!Can you imagine now that Mexicans change ethnical structure of New Mexico in just 50 years and then they say that Americans hate that, that Americans beat tham, humiliate them and other stupidities and than they just declare independence and Russia,China,India,Serbia recognize them?Would that be right?Would that be democratic?You cannot change other boundaries just because some governments have interests in that area!Interest of western countries to recognize Kosovo is so they can have new military base and first NATO state in world, because by Marti Ahtisari NATO will be responsible for everything on Kosovo and they will be supreme power and supreme judges!I will not mention that "Kosovo" is European substitute for Columbia or Afghanistan (i think that you understand that) ... believe me i was on "Kosovo" and i saw what is happening there! That is just terrible! That NATO and some parts UN missions are just smuggling drugs and weapons form there to whole world! Even BBC made that reality show on which you could see how English journalist can buy women or weapon or even 10 kg of heroin, almost legal!That is terrible what is happening down there!

Anyway, as I told you, i would like to made some civilized discussions, those my comments was for Mr, Taulnad because he madded some malicious comments about Serbia which was totally unnecessary and simply provoking!So just provide me some links and i will participate in discussion with pleasure! As I told you, i am new on wiki and i still dont know what to do and where!

With regards --Bambyle (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again Richard, finally we understood each other! Thanks you for your comments and suggestions! As you told, someone already probably madded and published notations that I wanted to say about disputed territory of "Kosovo" so i will probably will not made any comments until something constructive and new came up!Thanks you for such good and detailed explanation of "NPOV" and Wikipedia politics!Thats I wanted to say and that is the reason why i changed those those about Albania border, becouse there was "Kosovo" treaded as independent and UN recognized state, i was only wanted to make suggestion that until that dispute is solved it should stay that Albania is bordered With Serbia via disputed territory of Kosovo becouse as i can see on Ukrainian page there is not even mentioned that it is bordered with disputed territory of Transnistria, so i don't understand  why is different with Serbia? But i noticed your suggestion very carefully and i will respect rules of Wikipedia and politics!Thanks you very much again for time and effort to introduce me with all of these things!Best wishes --Bambyle (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Well let's see, "Balkan Mentality" I doubt will be peace.Since your Wikipedia edits involve Languages and linguistics would like to help with Albanian languange? Thank you!--Taulant23 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC) '''


 * On Richards request i moved our conversation on Taulnat talk page!

--Bambyle (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig
It shows up as bold because it's linking to a page you were already viewing. On this page, it becomes a link :) -- Auto (talk / contribs) 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Flanders Field
Hi I am also unhappy with the Most recent edits to In Flanders Field and was considering asking for it to be protected any thoughts ARBAY (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Albania
Hello Richwales, No and I am not gone complain about it. I really don't care anymore. All I asked was that a consensus to be reached before they edit or revert anything. I tried to reach a compromise, same as we did about Kosovo in Albania's page. With some Serbs and Bulgarians(and Albanians,I am sure) in here is hard to deal with. Maybe if we utter that Albania was overruled by Serbs, Bulgarians etc it will make them happy too. Besides Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, which have left their cultural mark in Albania, no Serb or Bulgarian has left neither cultural mark nor any ruins. They did not build anything in Albania.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * COPIED MESSAGE FROM ALBANIA DISCUSSION-
 * Hi Richwales. I agree with you on including direct links to the sources. I included three sources (with embedded links in the article) for the former presence of Serbians in Albania and Gligan included one source for the Bulgarians.


 * http://z.about.com/d/historymedren/1/0/R/8/serbia400.gif
 * http://www.montenegro.org/duklja.html
 * http://www.jstor.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/stable/pdfplus/307765.pdf
 * The above sources are evidence for the Serbian case
 * Zlatarski, Istorija na Pǎrvoto bǎlgarsko carstvo, pp. 334–337
 * The above source is evidence for the Bulgarian case
 * These were previously included in the article, removed later on. I would also like to note that Taulant is now claiming that we have been making edits with no supportive evidence when in fact I have told Taulant just the same thing to her/him on numerous occasions.


 * What Taulant is ranting about is untrue and is not supported by any evidence. In the evidence provided there is ample supporting data describing the direct Serbian administrative control over present-day Albania in the pre-Ottoman era. Also cultural marks come in the form of ruins as well - see the Rozafa Castle of Scutari and the accompanying Serbian folk story documented by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić located in the work of Alan Dundes. I have not yet bothered to find more documentation on ruins left by the Serbians. However, the other two sources imply extensive Serbian cultural impact in northern Albania during pre-Ottoman times. As for the Bulgarian presence, you should speak with Gligan. Basically, Taulant is an uneducated bigot that, worst of all, is unwilling to be educated. The requirements of the sentence are that Albania was governed under a people and that the ruling people left some form of cultural mark (i.e. ruins). The evidence presented satisfies the requirements of the sentence. Thanks for your time. Gkmx (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Instead of the third source you see in the Serbian list, view this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=MDmGX5y40IwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+walled+up+wife&sig=ACfU3U0Zat9kEUQED9toELlnPm_eeRQrSw . Its the same thing, only that its viewable through a public source (you don't have to go through JSTOR this way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean,even when I talk to you he has to follow me :).
 * The first one is just a map of Serbia/Balkan-useless
 * Second is more about Montenegrins, they took Durrës and what did they build/ruins/cultural mark?
 * The book does not declare anything that Bulgarians made any kind of cultural mark in Albania. I like the cover though :)

The sources are very unclear. Don’t even put them. I am trying to find any trustworthy source that can show any cultural marks that Bulgarians have left in Albania. So far I have found nothing. Maybe because they did not stay too long in Albania or perhaps they just used the castles and other places that already wore there before they arrived.Serbs,what a joke,cultural marks in Albania :) they did not build anything besides corpses of poor people.Anyways,let's move this debate to --Taulant23 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taulant23 cannot find sources that would refute the fairly straight-forward sources that I have collected. About the "ruins" that Taulant23 does not believe exist - where ever there are humans there are some form of ruins or evidence of environmental alteration. The specific structure that I've demonstrated that the Serbians built is the Rozafa castle (or at least portions of it).

The following is copied from the Albania talk page: I agree with Richwales that the sentence could be rephrased. I do not believe that "sweep through" allows for any significant POV. Including Italians (the WWII Fascist Italians) would be more than appropriate. It does seem that they left quite a significant cultural impact that is felt to this day. The Italian fascists were the one who created the first Greater Albanian state - a dream that many in the region have since sought to fulfill. I am uncertain of the time when Italian became a popular foreign language in Albania, but if it did in fact become popular after WWII, then there's further evidence of their cultural impact. What I intended to do was not to suggest that there are significant elements of Serbian culture in today's Albanians, but rather demonstrate that there were in fact Serbians living on the territory of today's Albania and that they did leave their cultural remnants in the form of their ruins and added chapters to the history of the Albanian people. Please do refer to the map that shows the boundaries of the various Serbian (pre-Ottoman) states most of them included at least a small portion of today's Albania. Especially northern Albania. The cultural impact is not noticeable in the everyday lives of today's Albanians, however the impact is quite present in the history of the Albanian people/nation and their history is part of their culture. I believe that the sentence could be rephrased as suggested - "The following nations ruled over part(s) of the present day territory of Albania and left behind their ruins as well: __________________________________. They left varying degrees of cultural impact with the Greeks and Ottomans (and whoever else Taulant23 suggests) having the greatest impact of all." You get the idea. Two sentences is a good compromise. One basically listing all the nations that been present in today's Albania and the other stating which of these nations had the greatest cultural impact. We most certainly should include the Italians of WWII. Any thoughts on the Italians and the rephrasing to form two sentences? (This will be copied to a few user talk pages). Gkmx (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Gkmx (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions about alleged use of multiple anon IP addresses by someone who has an account
I have replied to you message on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thaci with Kosovo emblems.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Thaci with Kosovo emblems.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Birthright Citizenship citation removal
What are you doing taking out citations and making changes unilaterally that are highly controversial in an article undergoing a discussion of which you're part? There's no requirement that sources with citations be available entirely free online, or else no WSJ article could ever be cited. That reason is absurd, and the full text is available by signing up (for free). I'd ask that you put it back as you found it until the discussion is something more than an unclear split as it is now. Jkatzen (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair criticism. I've done the following:


 * I found a free online copy of the entire Houston Chronicle story and replaced the non-free cite in the article with a free version.


 * As I said before, the two sources do not address the question of whether "anchor baby" legislation would survive judicial review, so I stand by my earlier claim that these sources do not belong where they were. I (re)created a new paragraph introducing the issue and moved the sources there — something I believe needed to be done in order to justify keeping these two sources in the article at all.


 * I've left the contentious "anchor baby" language alone for now. I acknowledge that I misread the extent to which the RfC had gone and whether we were ready to try this sort of rewrite along the lines of one of the suggestions made.


 * Richwales (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adjusting User:Good Olfactory/Canadian. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorian
One of the user's IPs was blocked temporarily and even though the block expired weks ago he hasn't returned yet. If I recall correctly, he's taken breaks from Wikipedia before. I expect he'll be back again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

About Sandra Roelofs
Well, she is pretty good in Georgian language, really, with 9 marks. But, because of her dutch accent, i think she'll get 8 marks from me :)--Rastrelli F (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Rich, you are welcome. "Dutch accent"? She has no troubles neither with Georgian characteristic sounds, nor with verbs. In "accent" I meant Dutch pronunciation, she makes accents in her speech that are characteristic to Dutch. Besides she's speech is not bold and fast enough, as sometimes she forgets necessary words when speaking. For this reason she wouldn't "be mistaken for" a native :). But your right, she has done quite big job of mastering Georgian. Once she said in TV show that her son was the best teacher for her, as he had been making remarks about her incorrect pronunciations :)


 * By the way, how much would i get in your scale :)? Should i change my babel en-4 template in en-3, or perhaps lower :D? I think i should, i haven't had English practice (both writing and speaking) for months :( --Rastrelli F (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your corrections, they were very helpful. Now Sandra's "accent": Are you saying that she is mispronouncing some Georgian sounds, or combinations of sounds, by substituting Dutch sounds that are similar but not quite right? - yes, something like that, now I remember that she mispronounces: "წ", "ჭ" & "ყ", and instead them she uses sounds between: "ც-წ", "ჩ-ჭ" & "ხ-ყ". Anyway, this is not the main problem in her speech. When I mentioned "accent", i meant grammar one: in Georgian, accent always falls on the first syllable of the word, I don't know how it works in Dutch, but in her speech accent falls on the last syllable, that's why her speech is easy to distinguish from one of native speaker's. E.g. native: სა'შუალება - sa'shualeba (means), Sandra: საშუალება' – sashualeba';
 * By the way, Sandra is also interested in Mingrelian too :). --Rastrelli F (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry not answering so far, as I really needed time to understand everything you wrote to me, considering my limited free time :) I've never read so many linguistic terms in English before, perhaps only in Pygmalion :D Linguistics must be your hobby. I read your post carefully and found it very interesting, especially west-european languages part. Well, I can only guess about that issue, as my knowledge in linguistics is based on what I've learned in my school and it was enough only for poor explanation above :)


 * Now, about ყ, let me offer you a "Katie Melua interview" for better understanding what the sound ყ is in fact(not quite sure the structure of sentence I wrote, is native to English). Here she uses old Georgian Tongue Twister: ბაყაყი წყალში ყიყინებს (you'll find it in the middle of the interview 4:20 m), which is used to master ყ-'s pronunciation . Georgians use this against foreigners (especially towards Russians who use к instead) in jest of course and I'm not surprised on what you said:my brain wants to conclude that what I heard wasn't really a human speech sound at all :). I think the better substitute for ყ is ხ (kh) and not კ (k). Believe me ყ is not the hardest sound for Georgian children to learn how to produce :) (e.g. my brother used to call me "ვატყანი" (vatkhani) when 2 years old, instead of ვახტანგი (vakhtangi), as it was hard to produce for him). Producing non-pure ყ (as you mentioned- ყხ, კხ) is harder than to produce pure one, I mean for children.


 * About "stress", I used accent instead as this word is in use in Georgian too (აქცენტი - it's a barbarism of course) and it has two equivalents in Georgian, first: წართქმა-"pronunciation" (as you mentioned all the qualities of someone's speech taken as a whole) and second: მახვილი-which i translated as an accent (based on my poor knowledge). Now I know the correct term, thank you :). Modern spoken Georgian has not heavily stressed syllables indeed, but as Georgian linguists claim it definitely has stressed syllables, not very heavily but still has, and which always falls on the first syllable. Maybe you're right about Sandra, she's trying very hard. Thank you again for your interesting post.--Rastrelli F (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgian sounds
The sound ყ is raspy indeed. Sounds close to ყ are კ, ღ & ხ, for this reason they can be used as substitutes to ყ (more correct substitute is ხ). There is only one sound among them that sounds like "snap"/"click" - it's კ(like Russian к). Your post makes me doubt that you heard the last one - კ, cause I'm sure you know what the sounds ღ (like French "Renault") & ხ (like "architecture") are, besides they are not "click"/"pop"/"snap" sounds as you characterized heard one. Of course it depends on what sounds appear just before or after ყ, but the point is that this four sounds, I brought here, never appear together(one after another) in words. My doubts came true when I was listening to the record you had provided and I clearly heard two კ just before the word "გავამთლიანოდ"("Unify" - 2:52m). I think it was just an outcome of Saakashvili's emotional speech, where he  stumbled over that word and after it too. So I can definitely say that the sound you've heard is not ყ :). Now, let me ask you about frog's sound: which word sounds to you like sound frog makes: croak or ყიყინი? :)

I think you're right about Sandra's speech, about "მი–შა! მი–შა!" you're right too :). Then Saakashvili declared 1st September as a day of Georgia's unity. The word you could not make out was: ... მინდა გამოვაცხადო საქართველოს ერთიანობის დღედ (day).

In rapid speech საქართველო sounds more like საქართუელო /sakartuelo/ indeed (not sakartulo, maybe you just misheard), but when saying it separately it's definitely  საქართველო. There can be explanation for this issue: in old Georgian alphabet besides letter ვ there was a letter ჳ (like in English alphabet: V & W), which corresponded to the sound უი(უე) (like Whiskey). After reform in 19th century this letter was excluded(with 6 others), as there were no use for it, I mean Georgians have not been using the sound უი in common speech since long time ago, alternated it with ვ. But in some cases you can still hear this sound: like - ქაშვეთი, is pronounced in old way - ქაშჳეთი. The same is with საქართჳელო. If you would like me to provide explanations on the Georgian language talk page with pleasure, but I see our guys from Georgian Wikipedia have already done.

Thank you for your regards, everything is fine, though I and my brother took place in war as reservists, and were in Gori when Russians bombing the city. --Rastrelli F (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for explanation about "doubt" & "suspect" it was helpful. As you may know, in Georgian we have only one equivalent - ეჭვი, that is really confusing for me, as (for Georgians) they both ("doubt" & "suspect") are the same in meaning whether disbelieving or expecting something to be confirmed. Now I can clearly see the difference between these two terms, but have to say I don't really understand why there is need of using both them? :)


 * You're right, კ doesn't always sound like loud "snap"/"click" sound, but in view of what you had provided(I mean record) and analyzing the sound ყ's relatives, I concluded that it was კ in fact. Saying truly, it doesn't depend much on what comes before or after ყ, and one will always be able to distinguish it from others. (By the way, there is another word(besides many others), which again with ყ's desert, is also close to the cock's sound - ყიყლიყო).


 * In Mkhedruli alphabet many letters are similar to each other indeed, and when using it in pseudo-bicameral way it's really hard to read, but mostly for non-native speakers and those who has weak eye, because, as you may know, we (all) read not letter by letter, or syllable by syllable but word by word, that's why I practically have no problem with it.


 * Now about საქართველო - I have to say, I could not hear საქართულო, or even საქართოელო when listening to your records (especially slower one), but in rapid speech sometimes it's - საქართუელო. May be it's only an outcome of that person's emotional speech (if you noticed he was stumbling), or as once Dimitri Uznadze said: my Set want's me not to hear საქართულო (or საქართოელო) :)


 * At this moment I have bachelor's degree in architecture and studying to get master's degree(I just entered the second course), music is my hobby (especially guitar), besides I have passion for model aircraft, here is our clubs website (my brother is a manager). --Rastrelli F (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I didn't understand the difference between this two words, but e.g. in Georgian I can say that last sentence you wrote like this: ის მთავარი ეჭვმიტანილია, თუმცა ვეჭვობ ეს ნამდვილად მან ჩაიდინა - but never mind, thank you again for explanations and sorry if I bothered you with this :)

I liked that joke :). Subconscious is also main factor in mishearing something, e.g. the name მახო,(shortened მალხაზი), or even interjection - ახ (equivalent to ah) sounds to me like my name - ვახო, not always but often :) I did understand exactly what you meant about საქართველო, may be I just wrote it not quite correctly. I agree with you sounds in საქართველო aren't pure, but I can't say I here "eu" or even "ö" in it. May be this is due to my set, since I'm used to take it as pure საქართველო(and not only me)? In any case, if you one says pure საქართველო, nobody will say one said it wrong :)

Regarding to Georgian verbs - you misunderstood the person of the verb - გაბრწყინდება, consequently you went wrong way. გაბრწყინდება - expresses third person(in future), if it were second, then it would be - გაბრწყინდები, consequently object would be in vocative ending with it's suffix -ვ(for the words ending with a vowel) like - საქართველო(ვ) გაბრწყინდები. I think, perhaps because of გ-(in გაბრწყინდება you thought it was second persons prefix) and because of -ო(in საქართველო you took it as vocative's suffix), you mixed up the verb's persons. But in fact, it doesn't expresses second person, so it is correctly translated. Georgian verb is very complicated one, so good luck in your intention :) If you need more help, I'll do with pleasure.--Rastrelli F (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rich, it's curious but I see that PSA video for the first time :) and I like it, thank you for that :). Of course I can help you(and will help) either in identifying all of them or in transcribing and translating it into English, but first I'd like to see what you've got, if you don't mind of course :)--Rastrelli F (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bancroft Treaties
Thanks for bringing to my attention the likely fact that the Bancroft Treaty provisions between the U.S. and the Czech and Slovak Republics are no longer in force. In a quick web search, I turned up the following link:. That reference, at pp. 5-6, to a 1997 treaty on dual nationality between the Czech Republic and the U.S. seems to offer a lead on how to nail this down. I don't have time just now to pursue this, but please check the link and let me know what you think. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears that the old treaty, at least insofar as it relates to the Czech Republic, was terminated in 1997. See at Paragraph 3.3 ("The Complaint"). -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Made requested corrections. Am assuming that note delivered to Czech Republic terminating treaty with the former Czechoslovakia also applied to Slovak Republic. Uncertain of date of termination of treaty with Albania, but it apparently happened between 1991 and 1994.  Treaty with Bulgaria apparently still in force. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Found reference showing that treaty with Albania was terminated concurrently with re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1991. As for the survival of the treaty with Bulgaria, I remember some talk back in the 1970s that it contained some important provisions about consular access to U.S. nationals that the U.S. didn't want to give up. I'll see if I can find the text of the treaty.  Obviously the unconstitutional part can't apply to former Bulgarian nationals who have become U.S. citizens; but a problem could arise in the case of a former U.S. citizen who has become a Bulgarian citizen and might be deemed by Bulgaria to have resumed American citizenship as the result of an extended return visit.  Thanks again for nudging me to update the article. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Found full text of treaty with Bulgaria at . It's a perfectly typical Bancroft treaty with no other consular provisions.  I'm completely stumped as to why it remains in force. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Eka Tkeshelashvili
שלום כוראים לי שי 93.172.11.19 (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect
a) I'm not in an edit war with anyone; b) I have been reverting vandalism as per Wikipedia rules; c) proper warnings have been placed at the user's talk page; d) the user has refused to utilize the article's talk page for discussion; e) I have reported the user at the Admin board. I will remove your edit war memo and hope it was merely a good faith mistake.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information
Thanks for the additional information. From what you said to me and what I've read here on the talk page, it appears the "edit war" is non-existent. I would have been happy to help with it if it was needed, though. Please shoot me a message on my talk page if there is anything else I can do for you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sandra Roelofs photo - from Media copyright questions

 * I'm not so sure. I'm no expert, but your reading of template:PD-GE-exempt seems a bit broad.  The way I read it seems to imply that it is referring to verbal descriptions of events and facts.  Otherwise, almost every photo could be claimed as information of a fact ("the cat is sitting on the rug" is a fact, after all) - if not an event.  -Seidenstud (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, please do not reply here; instead, do so in the original thread at Media copyright questions. thanks -Seidenstud (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply from page:


 * Yeah. I really don't see it.  That's a big presumption that this is what the exemption was designed for.  Especially since 1a. and 1b. refer specifically to official documents and symbols of state, whereas 1c. does not mention the state of official things at all.  If it referred to state events, why wouldn't it say it like the other clauses?   In fact, I would even suggest that it's the opposite of what you suggest, that the exception is for "mundane generic facts," and not for events - official state or otherwise. That makes a lot more sense to me.  But, in the end, it's so vaguely worded that it's really difficult to say at all what it was designed for. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, in the future, why not just put the Media Copyright page temporarily on your watchlist? That's what I do, when I engage in a discussion on a page I don't normally frequent.  And it saves other editors the effort of duplicating their comments.  -Seidenstud (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)