Language desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 10

Radium

In what year did the word radium become known to the public? 89.240.57.97 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at or just after 1898, when it was discovered by Marie Skłodowska Curie and her husband Pierre Curie. Xenon54 / talk / 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were so proud of this discovery that they glowed in the dark. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data point: In 1910, Ezra Pound clearly expected his readers to know what he was talking about when he wrote (in the introduction to his translations of Guido Cavalcanti's poems), "La virtù is the potency, the efficient property of a substance or person. Thus modern science shows us radium with a noble virtue of energy." Deor (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Strindberg, 1907 "En blå bok": "Was ist radium? all chemists of honor and sense still ask." (His answer: Barium sulfate. He went rather insane towards the end, ol' Strindberg) --Pykk (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another, less anecdotal: The first citation the OED offers from a nonscientific publication is from the Daily Mail of (hey, an anniversary!) 11 September 1903: "All the speakers recognized that the discovery of radium, with its apparent power of emitting heat for ever without diminution, has opened the door to something like a new world of science." The use of the substance for medical (or quasi medical) purposes seems to have struck the popular imagination; by 1909 O. Henry was making a character say, "Change the treatment. … Call a consultation or use radium or smuggle me in some saws or something." Deor (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Slovak Lanugage Standard That Had Been Confsicated By Hungarians, Shelved In A Hungarian Library Due To Hungarian Censorship Out Of Magyarization And Polish Dialects That Were Once Languages That Ar

I remember goggling about Slovak and Anton Bernolak's standard, and came across a standard that had been confiscated by Hungarian authorities out of hungarian censorship 'cause Magyarization and found much later in a Hungarian library. I can't find this standard now. Does anyone know about it?

What are the differences between this standard and Bernolakish?

In a version of Polish language, I remember reading in it's ==History== that Polish dialects where languages but presently, they have converged to be so similar to the standard Polish that they are mutually intelligible. I can't find this on the present version, nor on the older versions. Am I imagining things?174.3.110.93 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, you might be thinking of Syllabus Dictionarii Latino-Slavonicus, the first Latin-Slovak dictionary, by Romuald Hadbavný, a Camaldolese monk at Červený Kláštor, written in the 1760s.

In 1782 Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor secularized the monastery, confiscated the manuscript and gave it to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

The dictionary, along with Hadbavny's Slovak Bible translations, is seen as the earliest attempt at codifying the (Western) Slovak language. There are views that Slovak lexicography would have advanced quite a bit faster if these writings had been available to Slovak scholars. (Stanislav Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival, Palgrave MacMillan, 1996, p 86, ISBN:0312161255). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question (and thanks), do you know when this Syllabus Dictionarii Latino-Slavonicus was discovered? Was it discovered in the 1900's? Does anyone know of anything like what I described in my first question but discovered in the 1900's?174.3.110.93 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any information on when it was (re-)discovered or even when Slovak culture became aware of its existence and location. Apparently Hadbavny's bible translation, the Kamaldulská Biblia has never even been published in Slovakia, though a commented facsimile edition was published by German Slavists Hans Rothe and Friedrich Scholz (co-edited by Ján Dorul'a). [1]. If you receive no answer here, I suggest e-mailing Matica slovenská for more information. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think this fax changes current written Slovak? How do you think it would change Slovak if it was published in Slovakia?174.3.110.93 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do his translations differ from current Slovak and how does his dictionary differ from current Slovak?174.3.110.93 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a rather basic English grammar question

Too much time overseas is worsening my grammar. Which does the Language Desk like best?

A) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop contingency plans accordingly in advance.

B) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and in advance develop contingency plans accordingly.

C) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop contingency plans in advance accordingly.

D) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop in advance contingency plans accordingly.

E) Other (please provide your own iteration).

Thank you, 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might find a more concrete (but equally accurate or more accurate) way of expressing the substance behind these semi-clauses, if we had more context. Is this for example, from a job description or curriculum vitae or request for applicants? Aren't impacts and consequences essentially the same thing, or is one sense included within the other? Could "accordingly" be replaced by "appropriate" or "the requisite"? Are you stuck with these specific words because they've already been prescribed by a committee or by bureaucratic compromise and consensus? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are appropriate. I depends on the situation you are using.174.3.110.93 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation I'm actually working from a document originally written in Chinese. Eliminating either impacts or consequences is easily done. Using accordingly is true to the original language, but appropriate would be smoother... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly is still an appropriate word to use. But the lexemes are not. Chinese does not distinguish between adverbs and adjectives, but English does. So in the case of "accordingly" (an adverb), you can not switch it freely with appropriate (an adjective).174.3.110.93 (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see, it's rather a different (and very old) problem, how much to translate the literal words, and how much (the translator's interpretation of) the sense behind them. (For example, Edward Fitzgerald's translation of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is a classic of English poetry, but it's said by some to be better than the good original because the translation isn't literal.) If you're translating what I think is the sense behind the words, you can throw out several of those words and just write something roughly like

Accurately foresee the results of major decisions and use those predictions to develop appropriate contingency plans

(In other words, almost exactly what both Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush failed to do in 2002-3.) But in the rare cases when I'm translating, I like to keep as much of the original wording and phrasing as I can, partly because I'm less than perfectly fluent or idiomatic in any language besides English, and partly because every original word has a cluster of associated nuances, connotations and meanings that might apply to the total sense. For example, "accordingly" is implicit in the second semi-clause and "in advance" is already included in the meaning of "contingency plan" (if you develop them after the event, they're not contingency plans). Keeping closer to what I divine to be the meaning of the original Chinese, I'd try something like

Foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions accurately and (accordingly) develop contingency plans ahead of time

But only you can tell how well that matches the original. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just about the order of a bunch of adverbials, C is by far the best. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think so? I like A the best. Indeterminate (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. "...and accordingly develop contingency plans in advance." Eyethangyew. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyethangyew?174.3.110.93 (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "in advance" superfluous when speaking about contingency plans? One can hardly develop them after the event. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like A the best, then C. The others are fine too, but sound a tad odd in mah eahs. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide between A and C. I'm not sure there should be a comma in any of them, though. That is probably a British English vs American English thing, though. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish equivalent of the name Harriet

Is there one? if not, is there a Swedish name close to it?

thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet is an English form of the French Henriette which is, of course, a feminine form of Henri, which in Swedish is Hendrik. That's as far as I can take you, but someone else might know how to feminise it. Gwinva (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, WHAAOE. Henrietta tells us that the Swedish form is Henrika. Of course, I should have looked first at Harriet (name) which tells us the same thing. Also, "Rika" is a short form. Gwinva (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way (and I know this from experience) Harriet (etc) means "ruler of the house". It can be strangely apt... Gwinva (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a Harriet ourselves, and it is certainly a case of nominative determinism... Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet is itself not unusual as a given name in Sweden, though it is not so popular nowadays. See for instance Harriet Bosse, Harriet Andersson. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think it's probably the most common variant of the name. The census says 9463 "Harriet"s in Sweden, versus 3797 "Henrietta", 1374 "Henriette" (the French but in Sweden more likely Danish/Norwegian version), 2462 "Henny"s, 343 "Henrika"s.. Anyone got any others? --Pykk (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm a goose - I should have realised there's an article about the name Harriet! and better still, it has the versions in many languages - such an exhaustive article! Sorry everyone, I've sort of wasted your time - thanks heaps for your responses. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a pet goose, I'd definitely name it Harriet. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this ambiguous statement mean?

From http://epic.iarc.fr/keyfindings.php

"Intake of milk and cheese was significantly associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk. The data suggested an inverse association for yogurt."

Does that mean that consuming yogurt reduces the risk of colon cancer, or increases it? And similarly for other similar statements on that webpage. Thanks. 89.242.155.121 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it means that intake of yoghurt is associated with increased risk of colon cancer. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "inverse association" describes the relationship between consuming yogurt and risk of colon cancer. They didn't write it well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear, but maybe I'm just used to reading this kind of horrible science-speak. Milk and cheese reduce the risk, yoghurt does the opposite, it increases it. Strange, though, I'm no doctor or anything, but if I had to guess I'd put yoghurt in the "good for you" category. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In context, I would agree - they clearly want to say that yoghurt is the opposite of milk and cheese. If I was just given the 2nd sentence, though, I would interpret it as saying increased consumption of yoghurt leads to decreased risk of cancer, ie. the opposite of what they mean. --Tango (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this context I can't honestly see a good case either way. Maybe they mean inverse to their previous statement, meaning different from milk and cheese; maybe they were poor at writing and meant an inverse relationship to cancer, the same as milk and cheese. I've not clicked the link. Is it possible to ask someone involved for clarity? 90.208.66.97 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the whole link, but it means certainly that "eating yogurt will increase your risk of getting colorectal cancer". The fact that sentence directly follows the previous sentence it that the latter sentence begins with the definite article ascertains this.174.3.110.93 (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence gives no explicit information about what kind of association they're talking about, which implies that it's the same sort as in the first sentence, namely an association between intake and reduced colorectal cancer risk. That is to say there's an inverse association between intake of yogurt and reduced colorectal cancer risk. A pretty convoluted way to say it to be sure. Rckrone (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be more or less split down the middle as to which one it really means. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with ambiguous statements is that they can, inherently, mean different things to different people. So the point we've come to is just confirming that very fact. Hence we cannot say with certainty what it means. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was agreeing with most of the other people who weighed in. "An inverse association between intake of yogurt and reduced colorectal cancer risk," means more yogurt increases your risk, which agrees with Richardrj, Aaadddaaammm, Tango and 174.3.110.93. I'm not trying to say that language is an opinion poll (although I guess some would argue that it is), but there's mostly been consensus for what it's worth. Rckrone (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another ambiguity that I suspect the Science Desk would have picked up on. Correlation does not imply causation. It is possible (though, I agree, improbable) that persons who have a craving for dairy products have an underlying propensity to this type of illness. Just as some pregnant women crave odd foodstuffs, it might also be the case for someone with an incipient illness. We need to be rigorous in our use and understanding of "associated with". BrainyBabe (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and how does that principle help us with the OQ? —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reading

Hebrew and a couple other languages read right to left. Are there any languages that you read the lines on the bottom of the page and move up? Googlemeister (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham, when inscribed on stone, started on the bottom left and worked clockwise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to use the word boustrophedon enough :) But I don't know any languages where they write bottom-to-top, no. --Pykk (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Writing Direction#Directionality: "Several scripts used in the Philippines and Indonesia, such as Hanunó'o, are traditionally written with lines moving away from the writer, from bottom to top, but are read horizontally left to right." Interesting... Steewi (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_May_29#reading and Hanunó'o script meltBanana 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may or may not technically bear "writing" representing a "language", you might like to check out the Phaistos Disc, which apparently was to be read in a clockwise spiral from the outside in: since the letters/symbols/glyphs/ideograms/whatever have their bottoms oriented away from the centre, you effectively start at the bottom edge and, by rotating the disc anticlockwise, read from right to left while remaining static, and also upwards to the centre. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question for Americans of the Western Seaboard (including Western Alaska):

Assume you hear your neighbor say: "Tomorrow I'm flying to the west". How would you understand that? Which countries may they refer to, when mentioning the "west" they are flying to? May those countries be in East Asia etc.? Or, maybe, you'll never hear your neighbor say that? HOOTmag (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine anyone ever saying that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't now live on the west coast but did for many years. The expression "to the west" is not a usual way to describe a destination on the west coast because "to the west" there is just ocean for thousands of miles. You might say, "There is a storm system to the west that should reach us tomorrow." It would be unusual to say that you are traveling "to the west". Normally, you would be more specific and say "to Hawaii" or "to [name of Asian country]". Marco polo (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might imagine that they were traveling closer to the ocean but not crossing it. But I agree with the above users, it's not a common statement here. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the collapse of the Soviet Empire, "the West" was used relative to that sphere of influence to refer to Western Europe and North America, so someone flying from, say, Moscow to London may have said that. Currently, I (in the UK) can't think of anywhere in the world where it would be used contemporarily, though several where "west" would modify an appended locality ("the west Island, the West Country, etc). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, even here on the east coast of the United States, hardly anyone travels "to the west". We might travel to "the west coast" or "to the Midwest" but not usually "to the west". Marco polo (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear enough. I meant:

"I live in California. Tomorrow I'm flying westward, abroad".

Would that sound reasonable? HOOTmag (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds overly formal and stilted. As mentioned above, you'd probably mention *where* you're flying to ("Tomorrow I'm flying to Japan." or "Tomorrow I'm flying to Australia.") The only time I think that you would leave it as a generic "west" is if you're a "free-spirit" type without any plans or defined destination. "Tomorrow I'm loading up my catamaran and heading west - wherever the wind takes me." Or perhaps "Tomorrow I'm going to the airport and booking a ticket on the first plane heading west." Uniformly, it will be using "west" as a general direction, rather than as a location/destination. Note that's for someone who's already on the west coast. Someone on the eastern half of the US might say something like "I'm going to vacation in the West," referring to (the inland portion of) the western half of the US, but you're more likely to hear "out west" or "in the Southwest" in this context. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Of course, a universal Pacific Coast phrase that seems slightly strange the first time an Easterner visits is "Back East", which is often be said by second- or third-generation Californians who've never left California and therefore have no east to go "back" to. And someone who lives on the Atlantic Coast doesn't usually say "I'm travelling east" unless referring to some part of Asia, but may say "I'm going to the Northeast" or "the Southeast". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1961, broken by 25 years in the San Francisco Bay Area (1966-92). In Northern California, you could say, as I recall, something like "I grew up in the Rocky Mountain West" or "I'm traveling to the Southwest" or "I'm driving up into the Pacific Northwest", but West as a direction of travel wasn't used. However, there was the phrase "west of the Farallones (coastal islands outside the Bay), i.e. beyond the furthest perceived limits of the Continental United States. That could be used either as a location or as a direction, often with an ironic or humorous historical twist, e.g. "no, I've never ventured west of the Farallones" or "they shipped him out far west of the Farallones" or "If you believe that, I'll sell you a piece of real estate west of the Farallones,"... —— Shakescene (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in California, and when someone said, “Go West, young man,” my feet got wet. So, I got on an airplane and moved to the Western Pacific. Having said that, even those of us with no connection to America's East Coast in 150+ years will often say "back East." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP's comments: "Back East" is acceptable, because NY is really east to California; However, why shouldn't Japan be regarded as being west to California (as it really is, e.g. on the globe)? In other words, when I say: "Today I'm in California, but tomorrow I'm flying - westward - abroad", why shouldn't you understand that I'm flying to, say, Japan, etc.? HOOTmag (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your many questions posted here have an odd way of veering from polling (first-language?) intuitions of grammaticality and semantic/pragmatic acceptability (questions that are perfectly valid, in their place, which probably isn't here) to demands for rules or rationales for correctness/acceptability. If you're not a student of linguistics or similar, I don't know why you're asking the former kind of question; if you are such a student, I don't know why you aren't attempting to do the hard thinking for yourself. ¶ The notion of "flying west" from somewhere at a far west to somewhere at a far east longitude (as conventionally determined) is presumably blocked by the strong identification of the latter with the "east". At this point a university freshman or even sophomore might well moan about the ethnocentricity and/or absurdity of Californians sharing a mental map split by the Greenwich meridian, but we adults take the fact of shared cognitions in our stride. This is off the top of my head; if you're really interested you'll look at the considerable literature about mental maps and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for rules nor for rationales, I'm just interested in the Californians' way of thinking: Can they understand that when I plan to fly from California to Japan then I will probably fly westward - rather than eastward, so that when they hear me say: "I'm flying - westward - abroad", they can understand that I'm referring to, say, Japan? If your answer is negative, so say simply: "No, they are too ethnocentric" (as you've put it), and I'll accept your answer as it is. HOOTmag (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone will understand what that sentence means, it's simple logic. But in your very first posting you asked ("Or, maybe, you'll never hear your neighbor say that?") if this is natural usage—to which people responded no, it's not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankxs. HOOTmag (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you would hear it for Asia because it is referred to as the East because of it being to the East of Europe and has always been that way. West would usually mean Hawaii or Santa Catalina Island from California. Can't think of any other usage I have personally heard, but remember this is supported by observation, not fact.--173.58.234.222 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However when one flies from say LAX or SFO to Japan or Korea, they are indeed flying in a western direction to reach those destinations. I think the sentence in the OP would never be used however.--173.58.234.222 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, in the UK we often tend to think of countries like Algeria and Libya and Tunisia as being in the Middle East, even though North Africa is directly South from us. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another side note, in eastern Canada, you might hear "out west" for Alberta and BRitish Columbia. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking to a neighbor who knew you were planning to fly from California to, say, Hawaii, you might say "Tomorrow I fly west", knowing your neighbor knew that by saying "west" you meant "Hawaii". Saying "Tomorrow I fly west" without any context would be fine, but would sound strangely vague, as if you were prompting your neighbor to say "where are you going?" It could be anywhere--though probably someplace in or across the Pacific. The wording "Tomorrow I am flying to the west" sounds much stranger than "Tomorrow I fly west". For the west coast region of America there is no single obvious "west place" to be "flying to". The statement is correct in a pedantic way--"the plane I will be on will be flying in the west direction", but in everyday use it would sound odd. Still, if I understand the question, flying west to an unspecified place from the west coast of America could easily be understood as anyplace in the Pacific Ocean (Hawaii being a common destination) or across it (Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Cambodia, etc). It would be less clear for places like India and Central Asia (eg, Uzbekistan), which may be easier and/or cheaper to fly to via an eastern route. Pfly (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the conversational context involved time zones, I might well say "west" rather than "to Japan", because the problem is similar if I go there or to Australia or Thailand. —Tamfang (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"solid, unbroken tone"

The guidelines for use of a logo include: "It should be reproduced in a solid, unbroken tone on a solid, unbroken background." What do solid and unbroken presumably mean in this context? (Intuitively, I think the meaning of solid, unbroken is unicolor, but then, the rule would simply say so, wouldn't it?) --KnightMove (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it means: one color, with no breaks or changes in that color (ie, no stripes or designs). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also no gradients. I imagine people could argue that their logo is unicolor even if it has different shades or opacity of the same color. Indeterminate (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "guideline" is he referring to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muimota

Do not respond

Why can't *muimota be a Hawaiian word? --88.77.229.139 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read the response to previous questions of this type - namely that your questions are not welcome becuase people think you are wasting our time, and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.

Perhaps you would like to be reported for vandalism?

83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Language_desk_questioner_appears_to_be_successful_troll and explain why you ignored previous requests to explain why you keep asking this type of question, and why you are now ignoring other peoples requests not to ask any more questions like this.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

If it happens again, let's just ban the user's IP. If anyone else in his/her house can't use Wikipedia, then there is only one person to blame. Vandalism is not welcome here, nor is time wasting. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't these questions come from more than one address? —Tamfang (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]