Archives

December 2004 through May 2005 June 2005 1–13 July 2005 14 July to 31 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008

If you have the time

Long arguments going on over Maltese language, your knowledge would be appreciated if you have the time. JdeJ (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Angr, just wanted to say thank you for your contributions to the Language ref desk. Whenever I read your comments I learn something new and intriguing! Your knowledge of language astounds me... She'sGotSpies (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Angr 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pescetarian

Thanks for cleaning that up for me. I was just trying to stop a fight over one word. It's a tricky business and now I know why some wikipedia articles are so long and drawn out and lose there audiance half way down. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wienchs (talk • contribs) 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Don't forget to sign your name on talk pages with the four tildes (~~~~), though! —Angr 08:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD

I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

Why Not necessarily, no? regarding your recent undo. What prevents a hypothetical English dialect (I'm not an expert in these) which admits *Me like him to be defined as having a quirky subject? You might say that all known English dialects admit alternative constructions, and that might be correct (but do we know - there are hundreds or thousands of them, not all investigated and some still in the pidgin or creole state?) for all I know. But why is this not an example? Are you saying that this hypothetical dialect would have to admit the given example and nothing else? That's a fairly strict definition and one which seems to be designed to avoid exceptions at all costs. All the best Io (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• If I encountered a dialect of English where "Me like him" was grammatical, my first assumption would be that the dialect in question uses "me" as the nominative case - that's not a quirky subject. If most verbs used "I" as the nominative case, but only "like" (or only a handful of verbs, including "like") used "me" as the subject, then I'd start thinking about quirky case. Especially if the "Me" could also govern an anaphor like "myself", since only subjects can do that. At any rate, I don't think it's helpful to start speculating in the article about what quirky subjects might sound like in English if we had them. —Angr 19:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A good answer, but not completely satisfying. I was actually thinking about a phrase often heard in American TV, using your example verb, where the protagonist is pointing at something, and saying Me, like. Here me is clearly an accusative since we have the alternative I like that. (Whether like is an infinitive or indicative may be a subject for debate.) As for anaphors, I'm sure you have heard something along the lines of Me, myself, am of the opinion that .... So I don't agree. It so happens that at least American TV exports examples of the kind above to all corners of the world, and in no case that I remember is the me-construction the only one accepted in any given situation. But that may admittedly be TV- and literary distortion. For instance, I haven't the foggiest clue about how "ebonics" is supposed to work, having learnt, mostly, HM's English. Cheers Io (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're probably hearing is "Me likee", pseudo-pidgin English. People who say that aren't following a grammatical rule that says the subject has to be in the accusative, they're imitating broken English. In "Me, myself, am of the opinion", "myself" isn't being used reflexively (I should have been more specific about that). I think there's some debate on the talk page as to whether "methinks" counts as a quirky subject; I'd say it isn't one if I am correct in thinking that people for whom "methinks" is/was an active part of their vocabulary cannot/could not grammatically say *"Methinks about myself". It's important to remember that quirky case does not refer to any instance of an apparent subject taking a case other than the canonical nominative case; it refers to the phenomenon of a subset of verbs being lexically specified to take subjects that are in an oblique case. I wouldn't even consider German "Mir ist kalt" to be an instance of quirky case, partly since "sein" in German does take nominative subjects and partly because there's no independent evidence that "mir" is a subject. —Angr 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of your (perhaps the, I'm not an expert, what I've learnt largely comes from Wikipedia and sundry readings) definition there's not much to add, except for the German example. Mir has to be the subject, since that is the referent and there is no way of substituting anything else without altering the sentence altogether (i.e. you can't insert es or the like).

In, Me, myself ..., myself is being used reflexively, if by that you mean referring to the subject (me in this case), so I may be confused about that point. Perhaps just my misunderstanding. Cheers Io (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: If quirky subject really does mean a set of verbs "designed" to take a subject in an oblique case and nothing else, then Icelandic is indeed an example, and that has, incidentally, lead to a great deal of confusion amongst part of the population about precisely which case to use, ranging from using the wrong oblique case (e.g., *mér langar (dative) instead of the correct mig langar (accusative), meaning I want to) all the way to making quirky cases, where they don't belong (e.g. *mér hlakkar til (dative) instead of ég hlakka til (nominative), meaning I look forward to). Quirky cases may not be an altogether stable phenomenon. Cheers Io (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In "me, myself", "myself" is being used emphatically; it could just as easily be an object ("John said he loves me, myself"). Reflexive means the object is the same person as the subject (I see myself in the mirror; I hurt myself, etc.). Icelandic definitely has quirky case and may be the only living language that does. —Angr 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Emphatic or interjection. The thought had occurred to me. That myself refers backwards (to use some plain language this once) to me seems perfectly reasonable to me being brought up with an inflected native language. Me, myself has an exact translation in Icelandic, ég, ég sjálfur, (admittedly in the nominative in this case) and here either part could very well be left out (but neither part could ever be an object by virtue of the nominative) but ég sjálfur is a reference to ég, albeit perhaps for emphasis or other stylistic reasons. Other labels may be as logical, but do nothing for the theory per se. Cheers

Forgot to sign, sorry. Io (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What Icelandic does have, though, that neither English nor German has, is a reflexive possessive pronoun sín used only to refer back to the subject. As I understand it, sín is used also when the subject is in a quirky case, and is good evidence that the subject really is a subject, and not the object of an impersonal verb. —Angr 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The pronoun goes sig-sér-sín (acc., dat., gen., the nominative does not exist) and is inflected alike for both numbers and all genders. It can, at least in many respects be considered to correspond to himself, herself etc. It is (obviously) called the reflexive pronoun (possessive left out) in Icelandic and German has an equivalent in sich, which is however not declined (that is the accusative and dative are alike, and for the genitive one uses the corresponding personal pronoun (e.g. seiner) or the habitual pronoun(-ending) + t + preposition, e.g. seinetwegen, meinetwillen etc). In any case it refers to something one does to oneself and has given rise to an entire verb class, the so called middle voice which I'm inclined to call a class instead of a voice as it does not have the characteristics of a voice and in many, maybe most, instances, alters the meaning so drastically that the connection is more or less lost.

The example you are talking about is however in most cases the genitive of the relevant personal pronoun. Examples are easy enough to come by, but let this suffice for a normal subject: Ég gæti mín (I take care of myself). But in the 3, person we have hann gætir sín, (he takes care of himself - reflexive pronoun) versus hann gætir hans (he takes care of him (someone else) - personal pronoun). Here the verb governs the genitive. So, when used reflexively, the 1. and 2. persons use the personal pronouns, but the reflexive pronoun for the 3. This is getting long, but all in all the correspondence with the German sich is very close, so this particular one is nothing specifically Icelandic. All the best Io (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this reflexive pronoun is used in Icelandic with quirky subjects, but the German reflexive pronoun is not used in sentences beginning with "ihm"/"ihr"/"ihnen", etc., showing that the Icelandic quirky subjects are really subjects, while the German "Ihm ist kalt" type of construction doesn't have an (explicit) subject. —Angr 22:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it (and I thought about it), but I honestly couldn't come up with an example, so that point is murky (for me at least) for the time being. Cheers Io (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PS You don't accept Ihm as the subject in ihm ist kalt, but when you think about it, kalt might have just as good a claim. After all, the sentence does have two equally important foci, kalt is what "does" something to ihm and kalt, at least, is nominative. Cheers Io (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've racked my brains without success. If you could provide just a single example, I'd be grateful. Cheers Io (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

←"Kalt" can't be the subject because it's an adjective. What are we looking for an example of? —Angr 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalt is an adjective, granted, but it's news to me that adjectives can't be subjects if they stand on their own, taking the place of a noun or pronoun (and now I have to think of an example to back that up - might take a while :-). At least that was not how I was taucht classical syntax in school the olden days a couple of decades ago. Quirky subject didn't have a name as such, but the verbs involved were called impersonal. I was hoping you had an example or a reference to one of the reflexive pronoun referring to a quirky subject which I thought was the point above. I've tried really hard to think of an example, and so far I've failed. Cheers Io (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be news to me if adjectives could stand on their own as subjects, at least without being inflected in German. If it were *Ihm ist Kaltes, then I'd be willing to entertain the idea that "Kaltes" was the subject. An Icelandic example of a quirky subject governing sín, taken from Susann Fischer's paper listed in the sources of the article, is Honum finnst bókin sín skemmtileg ("He is amused by his (own) book"). —Angr 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I may have jumped the gun with the adjective. You're right. If an adjective were a subject, it would (for lack of a better term) be substativized, as does happen in German (Alles Mögliche etc.)

As for Honum finnst bókin sín skemmtileg, sín is here a possessive pronoun, not the reflexive one. Personally (and I may be mistaken, as so often), I don't think there is a single instance of the reflexive pronoun referring back to a quirky subject (and keep in mind that the number of the verbs able to take a quirky subject is so limited that the list given in your run-of-the-mill grammar is close to exhaustive). Just a question: How do you actually define a subject? You accept a subject in an oblique case (with the qualifying "quirky", of course) as in mig langar(I want, that one does qualify as a quirky subject - the verb langa never takes a subject other than in the accusative) but refuse do accept ihm in ihm ist kalt as being a subject even thouch (except for the case) it can be translated word for word into English, He's cold, where he certainly is the subject.. Cheers Io (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS If you need convincing that sín is possessive, just substitute the plural: Honum finnast bækurnar sínar skemmtilegar. Cheers Io (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the reflexive possessive pronoun. Haukur (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A reflexive possesive pronoun is a new category to me (unless you forgot to add a smiley). This is just the third person, corresponding to mér finnst bókin mín skemmtileg (I'm amused by my book) in the 1. person. Cheers Io (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right Haukur. According to the same source (Íslensk tunga) sinn "may be called" a reflexive possessive pronoun. But note the "may be". This particular point is, to me at least, just a word game. Cheers Io (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Reflexivity and binding in general is an enormously complicated subject in Icelandic. There may very well be more valid opinions than there are researchers. (Whenever two Icelanders meet, they voice three opinions. :-) But as a general rule, since I really have seen quite a few instances of authors propagating each others' errors, everybody should be wary of non-native sources, and that does not just apply to Icelandic - I wonder how many errors I have seen in examples from other languages - I'll probably never know.

And to Angr (angr being Old Icelandic for regret, remorse or damage, I'm curious which one you are :-): Sorry to use your page like this. It just seemed convenient, and you are interested in linguistics, so I hope you'll bear with me this once. Cheers Io (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another PS: In the article you referred to, neither of the examples 1b nor 1c are examples of a quirky subject, since both are just passive forms of normal verbs. In 1b there is no explicit subject, in 1c the subject is hestarnir. Always beware of authors dealing with many languages at once. You're likely to see the same errors copied from one article to the next. Cheers Io (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PPS Well, I'll be damned. I found examples of sig referring to a quirky subject, provided by Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, no less, whom I once heard deliver one of the most illogical lectures I've heard so far. But one of them is from Íslendinga saga and goes:

En er hann sá bréf þetta virðist honum það bréf vera fjörráð við sig. (Íslensk tunga, vol. III, p. 612.)

You learn as long as you live. (Icelandic proverb :-) Cheers Io (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

40 years of Angr

I was completely off the grid on the big day, but now I've got enough Net to say:
Happy Birthday, and welcome to the 5th decade!
Best from Rwanda,
Malangali (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you! —Angr 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlson twins redux

The summary of the issue you made (User:Angr/Carlson) is, in my opinion, spot on. Is there any better chance of including a photo more representational of the Carlson twins' work now, under a claim of fair use? Could Image:OUTmagazineCarlsonTwins.jpg be used under a rationale of discussing their appearances in LGBT magazines, as exemplifying the twins' role in homoerotic photography and their use in advertising to the gay community? I figured I'd propose it to you, first, considering your general stance on fair use I love the parable, even though we don't completely agree on the subject. Although, you did put me in the mood for some vegan fried chicken.  :-) --SSBohio 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, User:Angr/Carlson was written a long time ago. I don't think I'd support the use of the image discussed there today, or the use of Image:OUTmagazineCarlsonTwins.jpg either. —Angr 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to hear it, but grateful for your quick response. I think there's a place for fair use in en.wikipedia, used judiciously. There are times when only the copyrighted thing itself can do the job. If we adopt a blanket prohibition on fair-use images, I think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is your current thinking on the use of images in the Carlson twins article? --SSBohio 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The image that's there is free, so it's okay. —Angr 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: First, the image in the article is stated as: "The copyright is held by Lane Carlson." {{withpermission}} ≠ free. Second, I was more interested in your take on the use of fair use images in the article to illustrate the twins' work in homoerotic photography and marketing to gay men. I have yet to see a freely-licensed image that conveys their claim to notability. The current photo shows them as buff male models -- not a unique characteristic -- and, as such, to my mind is not a replacement for a photo that shows them in the circumstances for which they gained their fame. I understand and respect your view on fair use in general, which is why I came to you for a different perspective on this issue. Given that fair use is still part of this project, what would constitute fair use on this article? --SSBohio 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is not being used "with permission", it's been licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Releasing work under a free license like those two does not mean that copyright has been completely given up though, so it's still accurate to say that Lane Carlson holds the copyright. My opinion on the use of nonfree images in the article is not what it was two years ago (indeed, I've been meaning to delete User:Angr/Carlson for some time now and just never got around to it). Whatever we need to say we can say in words, and if images are hosted legitimately at other websites we can link to them. —Angr 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations is being considered for deletion

Since you've contributed quite a bit to the list, you may be interested in joining the discussion. Thanks. Afasmit (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The quirky subject article

I've given an answer to your last modification on the article's talk page. Feel free to modify to your heart's content. I won't meddle. Cheerio and thanks for an enjoyable talk. I hope we have more. Io (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

Aye aye sir! Removed the picture from my signature. I didn't even know they weren't allowed. Guess I shopuld have been more careful. ^_^ La Alquimista 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Cardassian Dreadnought.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Cardassian Dreadnought.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. — OranL (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn — OranL (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

Since I've promised not to meddle, among other things for lack of specialist knowledge, why haven't you simply corrected the article Quirky subject yourself? With a, perhaps, annoying presence (me) out of the way, and specialists surely watching, the article is yours to edit and be corrected by specialists. The article doesn't deserve to be left hanging with citation needed and all that stuff. Why don't you shorten it as you know best, and others will fill in? All the best, Angr (have you decided which OI meaning fits you the best?) and cheerio Io (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy with other things, especially at Wikisource. I'll get to it! —Angr 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. But you didn't answer another question: Which Old Icelandic (or Modern Icelandic) name fits you best? There are more of those: Munnangur means a sore in the mouth and sálarangur means, regrettably, soul anguish. So, which one are you? :-) Cheers Io (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the above! My user name is derived from my real name and has nothing to do with "anger" or "ang(u)r". —Angr 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity. There are tons of words you might choose from, not all negative. In any case, I was just joking, no offense meant. Cheers Io (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cardassian Dreadnought.jpg

Hey, sorry about the deletion review. I didn't mean to offend you or anything, and I apologize if I did. Can you please take a look at this image and undelete it if you agree that it would benefit the Cardassian starships article as long as a valid fair-use rationale was added to the image? Thank you! — OranL (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've updated the "No rationale" tag to today so you have a week to add one. —Angr 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added the appropriate fair-use rationale to the image. Please let me know if anything is still wrong with it. — OranL (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Dia dhuit, tá ceist agam mar gheall air seo [1] agus b'fhéidir gurbh cheart dom WP:UE a chuimhnigh. :) While I understand your reasoning, I would be hesitant to label it "blatant advertising". No specific CD is mentioned in the edit and no link to buying any such CD is given. As an active Irish speaker myself, I know that these CDs have given the language a lot of goodwill when famous artists usually singing in English have recorded songs in Irish. In short, I think the CDs merit a mentioning in the article. JdeJ (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The external link I removed is a link for a specific CD that says "In shops now! Or available on line at..." at provides a link where the CD can be bought. That external link is definitely inappropriate. The section of text might not be blatant advertising, but it's difficult to see what it's doing there other than encouraging the reader to listen to the CD. It's certainly not providing any information about the language itself. —Angr 09:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

wicitestun

Greetings! Message for you on wicitestun. Lloffiwr (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling in Germany

I noticed that you have removed the link to the site http://educatinggermany.7doves.com twice now. I only tried to add this to provide a more balanced point of view to the article on Homeschooling in Germany which says that this is illegal. Technically the German government is able to recognise in law, home education, but it is reticent to. This stance contravenes several International Charters and Agreements. Did I do something wrong in the edit process or do you object to the site? Kinderlehrer (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The site is a blog or forum, and a non-neutral one at that. I don't think it satisfies the conditions at WP:EL for external links. It is not Wikipedia's place to advocate for legalization of homeschooling in Germany, either directly or through the links provided on the page. —Angr 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish digraphs

Hi Angr,

In Irish orthography, which sequences in the vowel chart do you believe count as digraphs/tetragraphs etc., and which are just for clarification? I'm trying to get our account straight. kwami (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a little hard to say in some cases. "bh" by itself is already a digraph, but then "abh", "abha", "abhai", "eabh", "eabha", and "eabhai" can all stand for the single diphthong /au ~ əu/ (and the monophthong /o:/ in Donegal), suggesting that they too are trigraphs/tetragraphs/pentagraphs/hexagraphs. —Angr 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! kwami (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't the e and i of eabhai indicate palatalization of the consonant rather than the vowel /o:/? kwami (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they could be considered as being part of the complex grapheme representing /o:/ between two palatalized consonants:

   < l  eabhai r  >
   / l′ o:     r′ / (Donegal)
   / l′ əu     r′ / (elsewhere)

Alternatively, they could be considered "silent letters" serving a diacritic function. For that matter, "h" could be considered to serve a diacritic function in the digraphs "bh, ch, dh, fh, gh, mh, ph, sh, th", and indeed in Gaelic script a diacritic mark is used instead of an "h". Whether you want to consider the "eabhai" of leabhair a hexagraph or the trigraph "abh" preceded by one and followed by two silent letters depends a lot on how you want to define the term "digraph" and its numerical followers. —Angr 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is adh a monophthong in Donegal as abh is? kwami (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's /e:/. —Angr 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there no eagh(a(i)) in Irish orthography? Everywhere else dh and gh appear symmetrical. kwami (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I was making up the original version of that page (long before Wikipedia!) I couldn't find any words with that sequence, but now that I have a searchable electronic Irish dictionary, I find there are a few words with it, so I guess it needs to be added. —Angr 04:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dew-new merger

After encountering a broken redirect in the article Phonological history of English vowels (dew-new merger), I noticed in the edit history for Phonological history of English high back vowels that you rewrote this part of the article and by doing so the rewrite seems to have downplayed the importance of the merger. The rewrite has also changed the title of the section, thereby breaking the link so the redirect no longer works. It may be appropriate to review the wording of the latter page so as to be more consistent with the page you edited. Thanks -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Data for good page

What material do you feel needs to be added to Luba-Katanga language for it to be an acceptable page? RJFJR (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template. —Angr 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Misspellings of proper names of 2008 Olympic Venues

Hi, Sorry to bug you again about a spelling issue, but there's a bit of a problem with names associated with the 2008 Olympics. A couple of orthographically anti-American Wikipedians (above all Bleedingshoes), as well as a few other relatively innocent Wikipedians who don't understand WP:ENGVAR have made a number of unfortunate changes to pages connected with the 2008 Olympics which I can't undo. Basically, everything listed at /Category:Venues_of_the_2008_Summer_Olympics/ ([2]) with a non-American spelling (like "Centre") is incorrect. One exception: Qingdao International Sailing Centre, which (at least for now) is indeed spelled with "Centre". These are proper names, and the proper names are spelled with the non-British spelling.

One could of course argue that the proper name is in Chinese, not English, and that the silly Chinese transliterated their own names incorrectly, and Wikipedia should "correct" the ignorant U.S.-loving/British-hating Chinese, but that would be a stretch. Could you rearrange the redirects so that the correct spelling for these pages (except Qingdao) is the primary page? (Or give me temporary authority to do it, if that's easier, and possible.)

Thanks, SW

P.S. See [3] for verification.

P.P.S. There are some others listed here: /Category:People's_Republic_of_China_sports_venue_stubs/ ([4]). I'll go through those this weekend and verify which spellings are incorrect.

P.P.P.S Sorry, I don't know how to link to Categories without using the full URL!

Ack, I don't have time to do this now, but I'll see what I can do later. To link to categories, just put a colon before the word category, thus: [[:Category:People's Republic of China sports venue stubs]]. —Angr 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks! (It can wait a few days.) Samuel Webster (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I see that I am able to move quite a few them. I'll get to this tonight (Europe Time), or during my next break, and then report back with a list of those that can't be changed. Thanks again, and sorry for the hassle. Samuel Webster (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion on Celtic Nations

I have commented on the Celtic Nations page, but have not reversed your revert. However, am considering readding info but removing some of the "unsourceable" comments. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande

You beat by a few seconds. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)