User talk:Adam Carr

Bronze head of Augustus: photo taken by me in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, April 2002

Please do not ask me about the sources of photos which I uploaded in the past. Those I have taken myself are tagged accordingly, all others may be deleted if they are thought to violate copyright.

Hooliganism

There is no initial "H" in Russian. Adam 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I happened to be a native russian speaker, and yes there is a initial H in russian. In fact it is fairly common. The letter is called (Ha) and in cyrilic it is written as X or "Х". The words like cold(Holod Холод), bread(Hleb Хлеб), good (Horoshy Хороший), trunk (Hobot Хобот) all start with H or russian Х. the word for hooligan is Хулиган, and russian X is always trunsripted as H. For refernce check rambler.com dictionary [1] (http://www.rambler.ru/dict/enru/00/d4/b0.shtml) you will see that hooligan does indeed start with H(X) in russian.--Hq3473 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hesitate to argue with a native Russian speaker, but the cyrillic letter "X" is usually transcribed "Kh" as in Khrushchev (Хрущёв), and is not pronounced like "H" in English. It is pronounced either "kh" or "gh". I have listened to spoken Russian a lot and I know that Russians say, for example, "Ghitler" for Hitler and "ghomosexual" for homosexual. Adam 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i can agree that X can be(and most of the times should be) transcribed Kh, but never as G or Gh. the words Hiler and homosexual do not start with X in russian they start with russian G the "Г" letter (Гитлер, Гомомосексуалист NOT Хитлер Хомомосексуалист). I will be happy to transcribe Hooligan as "Khuligan" but never as "Ghuligan" or "Guligan". In fact i will change the "H" to "Kh" right now.--Hq3473 00:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

You catch a lot of crap around here, so I thought I'd drop you a little note to know that all the good work you do on Wikipedia is much appreciated. Everywhere I look I see your excellent contribs. Keep up the good work, and warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 05:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to second that :) →Raul654 05:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Your contributions're actually part of what had me give Wikipedia a half-serious go; you went hiatus right after I'd registered an account, I think. Glad to see you back. Shem ^(talk) 12:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for cleaning up my contributions. I was wondering though what are your sources for some statements made in the middle of some of your changes. For example: you have stated that the ALYM was origionally made up of Mostly Isherwood family members? you have stated that CEC was created by the League of Rights? are you really trying to help the Wikipedian community, or just spew forth propaganda from your Member of Parliment Michael Danby? Sci.notes 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Seventies

I hate to sound mean, but are you blowing me off? You cleared your messages without as much as a reply of yes or no. You created The Sixties...would you be interested in contributing to The Seventies or not? Mike H 19:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Seventies necessarily had the same events, but they had their own responses to the events of the Sixties, which makes the decade in and of itself another formative era for the world. But if you still don't want to participate, I understand. Mike H 03:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Royal_consorts_and_monarchs) cheers Antares911 23:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam, seems there's a bit of an inconsistency on Psephos. This (http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1993/tas-1993.txt) says that Brian Archer resigned on January 31, 1993, but this (http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/appointmentsindex.shtml) says that Eric Abetz was appointed to replace him on February 22, 1994. Unless the Senate seat was vacant for more than a year, it looks like there's been a typo there. Ambi 03:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Times and the election

Here it is [3] (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=19764).

Quote:

The Canberra Times also stood out from its counterparts, backing Mr Latham's fresh approach.

"John Howard has plenty of physical vigour left, and not a few political reflexes, but increasingly is not using his ideas to drive the country," the paper said.

"It's time for another driver."

I was suprised too, that's why I remembered. If you have access to Factiva (or similar), the editorial itself is an interesting read. - Aaron Hill 01:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)