User talk:Louis R14

hiya! :)

glaive

I assure you that if you change the introduction of pizza to read "Pizza ... is the Italian name of an oven-baked, flat, usually round bread covered with tomato sauce with optional toppings", you will be met with exactly the same argument. A borrowed word does eventually become part of the lexicon of a language, just as much as a purely native word, even if its origin never changes. So, I suppose if you wanted to say that "Glaive is a word of French origin for a polearm consisting..." that would be valid, but it seems rather irrelevant: I mean, train, blanch, vengance, fruit, legume, veal, and a zillion other words all come from French. Such words form a huge portion of the English vocabulary, and it would be ridiculous to make a note of that in every such article. --Iustinus 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, but i saw people doing it for german origin words. they must be proud of it and ashame about their french heritage (which is deeper) or some. i think etymology has an encyclopedic value. i do not agree about the lexicon though. maybe english academists language have a different view than the french one (Académie française). Louis R14 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed you had replied to me here. Êtes-vous français, vous-même? Yeah, the Académie française is notoriously different from most other languages, and especially English, which borrows words very promiscuously, and feels no shame about it. I agree that the etymology of the word is relevant, and in fact the history of the word is already discussed on the page in rather more detail than is usual for a wikipedia article. But it does seem to me that to say "glaive is a word of French origin" would be overkill. Where did you see this done for German words? --Iustinus 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Last_bronx_ps2_archives.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Last_bronx_ps2_archives.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rory096 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Last_bronx_ps2_package.jpg

I have tagged Image:Last_bronx_ps2_package.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rory096 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]