User talk:TheNameWithNoMan

This user may have left Wikipedia. TheNameWithNoMan has not edited Wikipedia since 8 August 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Richard Kane

Sorry if the edit summary (which is generic) was perhaps a little unclear in this case. My main reason for editing the article was to disambiguate the link Blenheim to Battle of Blenheim. At the same time I converted the article to use straight apostrophes, as recommended by the Manual of Style. And BTW, I'm British myself. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draft dodger article

Would you care to take another look at User talk:98.169.199.18 and his recent edits to Draft dodger? I've also reverted this user's edits to this article based on methodology (although I'm not judging content) but he's persistent. Might need an admin to assist? Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see he has removed the bulk of the page now. Apparently he does not tolerate differing views. By all means invoke an admin if you know how to do it and think it will help. My involvement in this article is peripheral, as most would class me as a deserter rather than a draft dodger, though I quibble with that distinction (in the article) in the absence of a formal conviction. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help resolve this, but I'm new to editing and don't feel I have enough experience yet to be useful. After some consideration, I don't think we need an admin, but I would recommend that you stick with it and post to WP:EA to get another editor's opinion on how to proceed. Be sure to reference this along with the page history and your respective contributions. I think the IP user does have a point to make, but he doesn't quite know how to do it with NPOV. Please let me know if I can assist, Chuckiesdad (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of virus

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Plural of virus. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Wnjr (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this section. Many contributors did. And there are references. And you don't own it. This treatment of common misconceptions was put in place to head off those who really believe that "viri" or "virii" are the proper plural.

You re-added the section, several times. There are no references to reliable sources in the section I removed, your desire to prevent other edits is irrelevant, stop assuming ownership of articles. Wnjr (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your removal of an entire section twice, not several times. I am tolerant of other people's edits, to the point that I don't feel the need to remove a section written by several other contributors because of some fancied fault. There are, incidentally, two perfectly valid references, one as a footnote, in the section you removed. You seem to be the one who will not tolerate interference with your agenda, and who is assuming ownership of the article, to the point that you now wish to destroy it utterly because you didn't get your way. Fine, let it be removed, then some "leet dood" will re-incarnate it as "the plural of virus is virrii ha ha ha ha ha" and we can start again.

You had already reinserted the material several times before I even saw the page. I looked again at the article after you restored the material you are so keen on retaining, to see if it could be incorporated into the rest of the article, or the relevant virus and wiktionary:virus entries and determined that the useful content was already there. Creating pointless articles to protect against hypothetical, or even real, leet doods is a fool's errand.

Wnjr (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you again, I did NOT add that material to the article. It was written by someone else. I have often reverted changes to Plural of Virus, and I did edit part of another section, but the part you removed is not mine. I dispute your assertion that the article is "pointless".

This is Wikipedia

Please note that this website is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is one of any class of websites which allows its users to edit the content. Calling this website "wiki" is similar to calling Salman Rushdie "man". Stifle (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add links to file downloads

You added this link to an article a while back as a reference. We do not link to direct downloads of files because of the very real threat of copyright violations and malware. Linking to a software application download is never a valid encyclopedic reference. Please see WP:RS. If the software is legally available, we need a reliable source explaining that. The site in question doesn't appear like it would be reliable even if you ad linked to an information page instead of a file. Every software application in the world is "still available" if someone puts it up on some web page on their own. It doesn't rise to the level of something we would mention unless it was legal and somehow noteworthy that people can still get it. Even there we would describe the situation, and provide a ref to a nontrivial reliable source explaining the situation, not link to the file download itself. Wikipedia is not a web directory. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows File Hashes used in Security Software

Hi, thanks for your contribution here. I was wondering if you knew of modern security software that employs the file hash method. I have been looking for something like this, because, I have access to Windows files and can replace infected files. I understand the files may have been altered by "Windows Update", but I am happy to revert to my current service pack version. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add, that end users won't typically be checking a system offline. In other words, they wouldn't typically boot from a different OS (known to be clean) than the infection is on. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit packshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit packshot.jpg, which you've sourced to Dr. Solomon. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you didn't take the photo - but you did not design or print the boxes, and as they are a considerable part of the image, then the rights of the copyright holder (Dr. Solomon) of those images must be taken into consideration. Maybe the deleting admin won't agree with me (they don't always), we'll just have to wait and see. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit packshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit packshot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phoo

Virus and the Virii

Hello. Could you please tell me where you got the quantities for the name Virius from ? I do not find any poetical attestation of the term.--82.66.148.150 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. The article has many contributors. (This reply must not be construed to imply that I understood your question). TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't more precise (and also, I cannot find my old account password). I was refering to the fact that you undid my revision of the article ( added reference to the Virii and the gens Viria), stating that Short "i" virius not related to the long "i" word here (see the edit history of the article Plural form of words ending in -us). So, I was interested in knowing where you found the quantities (particularly here, the short i) for the name Virius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.105.13 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "There does exist a Latin word virī, meaning "men" (the plural of vir, a second declension masculine noun), but it has a short i in the first syllable. The difference in vowel quantity is reflected in the different pronunciations of the (Latin-derived) English words virile and viral." Your edit was related to the word "virī" (first i short), and not to "vīrus" (first i long). They are different words. Plural or other endings of vir or viri, which is of a different declension to virus, have no bearing on the possible plurals for virus. The plural of vir (man) is well attested to be viri. Virus has no known plural in Latin, which is what a great deal of the article sets out to explain. They are different words. The possible existence of a word "virius" (with a short i in the first syllable), does not have any bearing on the "putative, nonexistent word vīrius" (with a long i in the first syllable). The root words are different. The declension is different. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you read my edit quite fast. Actually, my edit did not concerned (at all) the common noun vir (whose plural form would not, in any case, be virii) but the proper name Virius (also found in the name of the gens Viria). I do not know of the etymology or the quantity of this word, not attested in poetry as far as I know, so that is why I was interested in knowing where you got the quantities (and possibly, if I understand well, the etymology) for this word, different both from virus and from vir, but whose plural is definitely Virii. Moreover, I clearly did not stated that it had an impact on vīrus, only that Vīriī would be the plural form of the putative, nonexistent word vīrius or of the attested name Virius. --Jang2013 (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that your edit had nothing to do with the issue under discussion in the article, which was the plural of virus, and not some name that shares a syllable but is otherwise not related in any way.TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that it is not more or less related to the issue that the mention of the « putative, nonexistent word vīrius », of which Virius is an homograph. Moreover, it is a bit disturbing to speak of an « nonexistent word », when the same exact form is attested as a proper name. It would be consistent to leave or remove both mentions. --Jang2013 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahon discussion

For clarity, I've compiled the discussions to cut down to just the bare arguments.

I'm happy to put it to a vote. So far I say Mahon, you say Port Mahon, one says move, but doesnt say where to...
The "winners" are the two that say move to Mahón.

Move discussions usually end after a week so hopefully it makes it clearer for the admin that has to deal with it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]