User talk:Angr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Why did you say this? 2 span.IPA at User:Angr/monobook.css 3 (Deletion log); 21:45 . . Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:PaulStanleyArtByPhilKonstantin.JPG" (I6: No justification given for non-free image) 4 Image of Jayne Marie Mansfield 5 Deletion review for Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg 6 Help/advise needed 7 Gaeilge 8 German translation on ref desk. 9 Mariology 10 Verkündung der Wehrfreiheit 1935 11 Roman Catholic Church 12 Have a look at Syntax 13 Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles 14 Category Mariology 15 Please stop biasing Syntax against prescription and accidentally sabotaging literary quality of the text 16 Categorial Grammar 17 Brythonic in Ireland

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Verkündung der Wehrfreiheit 1935

Re: your comment on the Treaty of Versailles Talk page: the document is at my office where I'll return only on Weds. Scanning's a bit of a problem; I might photograph it if that would help, so I may yet take you up on your offer. The printing is some blackletter typeface that neither I nor a younger colleague could puzzle out, and I'm contemplating showing it to one of the seniors educated in Europe. Basically I'm hoping that nailing the terminology will provide insight into that milestone in 20th C. European history... though I've been told overtly that I'm naive (or worse) to seek subtleties in Nazi promotional texts. Anyway, I'd like to put it on that page. I'll update you ...meanwhile, thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's Fraktur I should be able to read it with no problem. At least it's not handwritten; Kurrent gives me a headache even when it's very clear and neatly written, and of course it usually isn't. And it would be nice to know what it says even if there is no subtlety behind it. —Angr 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [1] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at Syntax

Hi Angr, want to have a look at Syntax? There are some idiotic edits going on, and I've lost my patience in fixing them, so I'm going to just pull back and wait, but maybe a less involved voice can calm the person involved. AndrewCarnie (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look, but I doubt I can be much help. I stopped understanding syntax after it got more complicated than S → NP VP. —Angr 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits there are amazing aren't they? People who go on and on about clarifications and styles and clearly know nothing about either just drive me crazy. Thanks for your support there... AndrewCarnie (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles

A new discussion you may be interested in:Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category Mariology

Your well intended new Category Mariology creates some content problems. As you know, mariology is the theological study of Mary, which methodically presents teachings about her and her veneration to other parts of the faith, such as teachings about Jesus Christ, redemption and grace. In other words, M is not just anything on Mary. After several sometimes bitter debates, we differentiated therefore between MARIOLOGY and VIEWS ON MARY, the latter referring to theological contributions, which may consist in a a few important sentences on Mary but not a theological system. I am happy to discuss this with you. Maybe I misunderstand you, and you can explain it better to me. (I wrote most(Luther, Calvin, Barth, ecumenical and much or Protestant views), of the articles you listed in your category) Maybe we can rename the category or whatever, we can not redefine mariology -:)) Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know a whole lot about it. I only created the category because I felt we needed somewhere to stick all these articles about various people's and various denominations' views of Mary. If Category:Theological views of the Virgin Mary or something would be a better name, that's fine with me. —Angr 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had them in the category RC mariology, since the articles discuss this aspect as well, but somebody removed them with the equally justified implicit argument that they actually do not belong there. I think theological views on Mary is fine, because "blessed Virgin" it too evaluative for some, and we want to stay neutral. I like your addition and I am working on an enlarged methodological intro (what is mariology, relation to other theological sub-disciplines, major orientations, problems ---NOT content!) Thanks and Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop biasing Syntax against prescription and accidentally sabotaging literary quality of the text

Since you, as well as Professor Carnie, are in fact a language expert to some extent which I am not aware of at the present time, I appreciate your willingness to give the jargon – laden, unintelligible language article Syntax your time and attention, and because of your understanding of many of the issues which revolve around linguistics I actually would like you to involve yourself with the task of rewriting parts of, or in fact rewriting the entirety of this unusable article entry.

I apologize for not posting explanations for my edits on the article talk page on an immediate basis, but I keep running out of time on this terminal and I certainly will provide all relevant information on that talk page as soon as I can. Unfortunately, you have made the unwise choice of taking the Professor's request for you to "calm" me down too much to heart, and as a result you have decided to approach this article with a closed mind by erasing 8 carefully considered edits [including the posting of a jargon warning banner template] wholesale in one swipe, apparently without reading any of the edits by so much as looking at a diff display page.

The "Prime Directive" with which we all must approach the writing and editing of these encyclopedia entries must always be to let the reader decide for themselves what opinion the reader will adopt with regard to the subject of the article, instead of rigging article entries in order to attempt to brainwash unsuspecting readers into blithely accepting whatever conclusions are considered to be acceptable to those who conceived the article.

I believe that your writing contributions could potentially improve this unreadable article – but before you continue to edit, ask yourself just one question: After the many readers who are coming up behind us examine both this article and many of the previous versions of this entry which were entered before the current version, can you honestly say that your philosophical approach to this subject matter is consistent with an unbiased, neutral treatment of the subject? Put in a different way, are you really, as Professor Carnie suggested, an uninvolved voice on the subject?

Let me suggest to you my suspicion, without trying to assert it as though it was already an established fact. You are already way too close to this issue. I am not a mind reader, but you seem to be already committed to making sure that this entry reads in a way (and this is unencyclopedic) that is inappropriately sympathetic to the linguistics experts who populate the field today, as opposed to language experts from past decades and centuries who were far more willing to be prescriptive in their approach to matters which involve education, literacy, spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Maybe you want this article to have a description – only bias. Let's do each other at least one favor: I will not adopt preconceived biases against you if you will show the same consideration toward me. If you in fact harbor an anti-prescription bias, you need to step back from this article. If, on the other hand, you are both able and willing to edit and write without injecting your own opinions into the final product (no matter what biases you may have), then in that case I would be more than willing to write with you. In any event, please give your thoughts and reactions to me by registering them both on the user talk page that I am using, as well as on the article talk page. 198.252.8.202 ^TalkHistory 17:14, Wednesday June 4, 2008 (UTC)

I am not biased against linguistic prescriptivism, and neither is the article. It's just that it's irrelevant to the topic of syntax. You might as well bring up linguistic prescriptivism in an article about baseball in the 19th century or an article about a South American species of fish. What you call the "Prime Directive" is known as writing from the neutral point of view (NPOV) here at Wikipedia, and pointing out that syntax is not concerned with linguistic prescriptivism is an objective fact, not a violation of NPOV. In fact, the two are so utterly unrelated that it would probably be better for the article not to mention prescriptivism at all than for it to explicitly point out the fact that the two are unrelated. My main reason for reverting your edits, though, has nothing to do with the wording of the discussion about prescriptivism. Rather, the reason I reverted is that for all your talk about making the article more readable, what you actually do is the opposite. You replace simple, straightforward sentences with unnecessarily complicated and prolix ones (as I mentioned on the talk page). You wrote, "Since linguistics experts who study syntax attempt to explain and describe grammatical structures as they are actually used by native speakers, instead of determining which way to form sentences in any given language is correct, this area of research does not deal with the societal function of linguistic prescription today", which is self-contradictory. Other changes you have made have either been neutral (replacing only perfectly fine wording with a different perfectly fine wording, for no discernible reason) or are worse than previous wording. In short, I'm not seeing any changes you've made to the article that have actually been an improvement. —Angr 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorial Grammar

Hi Angr, actually, there are no "verbs" in categorial grammars, what there are are functors from NPs to Sentences, so the category of an intransitive verb is (NP\S), and the category of a transitive verb is (NP/(NP\S)). There is no "V" category. Those things aren't clarifications, they are the actual categories... Given the mathematical nature of the system I don't know any way to make this clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.145.199 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 June 2008

Well, is there any way to explain it so that someone with only a traditional understanding of grammar can at least follow what's being talked about? The article categorial grammar doesn't really explain the slash/backslash notation very well, and if someone with a Ph.D. in linguistics (like me) can't understand the explanation, it's not really an adequate explanation yet. —Angr 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(The above comment was from me btw.) I've tried to make it clearer on the syntax page. I'm not qualified to fix the categorial grammar page. AndrewCarnie (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brythonic in Ireland

Hi Angr. I started a new section on the talk page of the British language (Celtic) article. Thanks for changing tack in our conflict and adding the citation tags, by the way: I think this is a helpful thing to do. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)