User talk:Nyttend/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Big Brother is watching you

Just for my curiosity: who came up with the Orwellian-sounding term authority control? EEng 11:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Librarians had to find some way to have fun after they got bored with shushing talkers. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Librarian action figure: "Press the button on her back and her arm will move with amazing 'shushing action!'" EEng 19:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

Now that the test-the-waters nomination has passed, will you be nominating the other categories per the agreed standard? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Germanic peoples edits

The word "barbarian" was in quotes, not because it was quoted, but because the specialized meaning in classical contexts is different from the most common one today. In the Greco-Roman world it simply meant someone who was not Greek or Roman, originally just someone who did not speak Greek, and did not imply any lack of civilization as it would for a modern reader. (For example a Persian could be a Barbarian.) In English there are several different reasons for using quotation marks. The fact that the modern word has use sometimes as an insult, not just a neutral term, makes it especially worth giving special consideration. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No that would (at least arguably) not be the same because the confusion would be more obvious, and indeed wiki-linked. Keep in mind I was simply explaining that quotation marks are not only for direct quotes, but can have valid uses in cases like this. I read your edit summary, which seemed to indicate you were not aware of this. A lot of editors do not write English as a first language. If you understood it all along, then no further discussion is needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You think other uses of quotation marks than direct quotes are "bad faith"? I do not think this is a normal or consensus position concerning punctuation on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't really follow whatever you are accusing me of, but please note that quotation marks have several normal and acceptable uses beyond direct quotation. I am not sure why you are not aware of this, but please, if you don't trust me, just check it yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Frederick Buechner image

Nyttend, I don't think we actually have the rights to that picture, which is why I deleted it in the first place. I am new to wikipedia, so if I am incorrect I would greatly appreciate an explanation. --Christiansay (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, the given image is not found in the wikipedia media library, and the only place it seems to exist on the web is on the Frederick Buechner official website, which has a permission request form for the use of images, of which there is no evidence that it was approved. Christiansay (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

swords

Some curved swords are single-edged, but straight, flattish swords tend to be double-edged (as far as I know). AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Chokutō for an example of a straight, single-edged sword. They do exist, and they're not particularly uncommon, though they've obviously not that common. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy something

A little birdie told me you made your first edit 12 years ago today. Thanks for all you've done since. John from Idegon (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

your comments at AN

[1] Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets -> APPEARANCE -> Strike out usernames that have been blocked --DBigXray 23:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

how was explaining Kevin169nyc's behaviour a personal attack

Please explain in detail here or on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI redaction

I don't see the PA that you claim to have removed. Walter Görlitz's explanation was clear, and the other editor's contributions backed up the objection without needing to point at particular items, IMHO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Mount Airy, Virginia (also "Mountairy")

I have removed part of your edit to Mount Airy, Virginia because I have never in any of my visits to Mount Airy nor any of my reading about Mount Airy, encountered it spelled "Mountairy". I think we should find good citation for the alternative name. (I do not think one exists, however.) -Ben (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently my argument is with the US Postal Guide, various edition dates, which pulled its alternate from where, exactly? Wish me luck! -Ben (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Module:Main

(belatedly replying to your comment on the TFD -- I didn't see it before it was closed): the reason I nominated the module for TfD instead of the template is because I want the module deleted: it's a purely backend nomination to consolidate backend modules (in this case, converting {{main}} to use Module:Labelled list hatnote) The removal of {{main}} from category pages would have been a side-effect of changes to the module, not an end in itself. My true goal was to get rid of Module:Main as unnecessary module namespace pollution, rather than to make any change to Template:Main, explaining why I chose to TfD it rather than the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

University of Chicago Law School

Thanks for taking the time to correct some of my lax editing in the University of Chicago Law School#History section, which I see was problematic in some parts – my apologies for that! Nicomachian (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

House of Commons edit

Hello. Your edit to the House of Commons article I'd like to query. The Queen is part of Parliament, but only in the figurative sense. Ultimately, legislation requires her approval and only she has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and other ministers of the cabinet. Her role in Parliament in reality is restricted to the Queen's Speech, drafted by HM Government, and approving laws etc. While the monarch has not refused Royal Assent in modern times, she still has that power. Parliament cannot sit without the royal mace because it represents royal authority. Rather than state 'branch of Parliament' because the monarch's role is debatable (albeit mostly symbolic and irrelevant), I suggest changing the wording to 'the House of Commons is the more powerful chamber' or something of the sort to be strictly accurate. st170e 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't bother with barnstars

...but I cannot fail to compliment you on your helpfulness and generosity displayed here [2]. EEng 23:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about a deleted page

Hi - it looks like your name was associated with this page deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Draft:153rd_Field_Artillery_Group Is there any way to find out who the author of that draft was? Thanks! Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 15:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

..You are awesome! Thanks Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 14:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:APPLCOR.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: École supérieure de journalisme de Paris, etc.

In answer to your question, I'm hoping that the forced accounts provision will provided enough evidence for an SPI to confirm that the accounts are all related, at which point we will have cart blanche to block as needed without necessarily having to assume good faith. It also leaves open the possibility for topic bans and a change in protection (likely 30/500 under the circumstances) which will be good for everyone in the long term. That being said, I'm open to changing the plan if anyone has a better one. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)