Miscellaneous desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 4[edit]

What bridge is this?[edit]

It may be in Canada, I am not completely sure. [1] Thanks! Timeform (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking Burrard Bridge, at least vaguely. It is a steel trestle bridge, cherry blossoms are a common sight in Vancouver, the backdrop could be the north shore mountains. However it would be a very unusual camera angle, taken somewhere between Granville and Burrard Bridges; also the downward slope at the putative east side of the mountains doesn't look quite right. I'll be heading to the Granville Island market in the next few days so I can look for such a spot. I'm not sure there is such a place to get such a perspective. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That picture could be of a huge number of bridges - it's a low resolution image of a conventional-design trestle bridge with a cherry tree in the foreground obscuring most of the detail. I could think of a dozen bridges from North Carolina to Delaware that would fit the bill, plus a half-dozen more bridges in California (assuming that there's a cherry tree planted somewhere nearby), and that's just from personal speculation. do you have a better image to go by? --Ludwigs2 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or could you tell us where you got the image? Is there any context at all? Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Akashi Kaikyō Bridge - see link here. Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

increasingly offtopic discussion collapsed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

That's strange. Why would anyone take such a tiny and obscure snippet from an image? Astronaut (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, apart from avoiding copying the 'Foto S.A.' bit. Mikenorton (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! How did you do that Mike? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A googleimages search on 'bridge cherry blossom', it was on page 7. Mikenorton (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy your expletive is short for "May God blind me (if I tell a lie)". If you use a PC running Windows then one way you can snip a piece of an image is as follows. 1) Have the image on your screen. 2) Press Alt-PrtSc. That puts the image on your invisible clipboard. 2) Start PAINT. 3) Press ctrl-V. That pastes the clipboard on to PAINT. 4) Drag the Select tool over the snippet of the image that you want. 5) Click on Edit - Copy to... and name your file something like MySnippet.jpg. Please be careful to tell the truth for a while. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddlyable, unless you are joking, I think you have misunderstood. I took Daddy's question to be "How did you identify that", which Mike then answered. And I don't know why you are offering us one possible etymology of a word that Daddy used. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I think your understanding of Daddy's question is correct. I don't know why Daddy prefaced his response with a Minced oath and I hope that does not become a habit. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly common expression of amazement. Most people who use it are not aware of its origin, and do not intend it to be taken that way. Besides, oaths of the minced or unminced kind aren't exactly unknown around here ("Deus vult!" comes to mind ...). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting to note that the first two people responding mistakenly identified it as a trestle bridge. I read those two responses and I was in complete agreement that it was a trestle bridge. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cuddlyable, in my part of the world, UK, "blimey" is a soft, everyday expletive used politely in any company for a surprising situation. I was surprised that Mike identified the cropped picture so (apparently) easily. Like so often in life the answer is right there - seeing it is the tricky bit. I certainly will be using "blimey" in the future, but only when I am amazed ;-)) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgarisms highlight the pretentious, showing people that lay unwarranted claim to social graces and education and attempt to inflate their status through the use of language they either cannot control or do not understand. Innocent examples of the former are some affected by Tourette syndrome and Hanlon's razor may be invoked for the latter. @Jack, Deus vult is Latin for God wills it and is a pious expression still current in the catholic church after nearly a millenium. It corresponds to Masha'Allah and אלוהים מבקש את זה in other major religions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'swounds, I'm stunned that you are appropiating the use of a miced oath to pretentiousness, lack or social graces, education or just stupidity or neurological disorder. I doubt Shakespeare intended any of these characteristics when he had ~~John of Gaunt~~ make a minced oath. Oops wrong character. 87.102.23.18 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, There's no pleasing everyone. If "BLIMEY" is offensive to your ears (or eyes in this case) then I present my apologies. But if you are indirectly implying that using "blimey" is a conceit you are wider of the mark than you could ever imagine. You seem to have an appropriate antonymic name. May your god bless you. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of replying to Cuddlyable3, 'struth mate, keep your bleedin' 'air on', but thought that it would be unhelpful, but after the further discussion.... Mikenorton (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary Online[edit]

Where can I find a good dictionary online? Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia but sometimes I just need a dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.186.101 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm assuming you're new to the internet - if not I'm sorry for appearing snide. Google excels at answering questions about where to find things on the internet.~~ See below. --mboverload @ 08:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try our list of online dictionaries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An even better answer! Sometimes I underestimate how helpful Wikipedia is. --mboverload @ 08:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google will act as a dictionary if you type in "define: " before the word you're thinking of. Dismas|^(talk) 08:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Wikimedia has a dictionary, Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary.—msh210℠ 08:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is www.onelook.com. It gives a quick definition, checks loads of different dictionaries (including Wiktionary) and gives a link to the etymology of the word. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I found Wiktionary is good but from the list of online dictionaries I found the Meriam Webster Online Dictionary even better. Thank you all again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.92.164 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best, methinks, is Wordweb.com. Once downloaded (it's free) you can install it and use it even when you are offline Jon Ascton (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of deleting article[edit]

The article about me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Segedy ) has been footnoted properly with secondary sources but I'm receiving a delete threat. Why specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msegedy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The note on your user talk page concerned deletion of a picture of you, not of the article about you. This has already been effected. It was (apparently) because there was not enough information attached to the picture about who owned the copyright on it, so no one knew whether Wikipedia had a right to keep it. If you uploaded it the first time and still have it, you can upload it again if you follow the instructions at special:upload.—msh210℠ 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire text of the description page was "Photo of author Michael segedy", so it was deleted both because it had no license and because it had no source. The article is now at AFD; you can find the discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "footnoted properly with secondary sources" points to http://apartmentlimaperu.com/about_owner.shtml which seems to be some sort of commercial establishment run by your wife. The page has picture of the both of you, and a cat... Jon Ascton (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article in question has now been nominated for deletion here. If it is to remain, it urgently needs quality independent reliable sources that support the claim that you are notable, as roughly defined by WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Nothing in the article comes close to demonstrating that. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cat. The kinds of sources you'll need would be newspaper articles about you, books that have been written about you... that sort of thing. Ideally, though, you shouldn't write about yourself at all- if you are notable, others will inevitably write about you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered highly dubious to edit an article about yourself. It doesn't help that the first version that you created was a rather blatant attempt to insert an advert for your book into the encyclopedia. You are not an independant witness to your own life - you truly cannot be trusted to write an unbiassed article. We would generally expect people in your position to restrict yourself to commenting on the article in the 'Discussion' page and not to edit the article directly. SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More about walking in Stockholm[edit]

My question about how to walk all the way from the Viking Line terminal to the railway station in Stockholm, Sweden, without once walking along a motor vehicle or bicycle route (crossing them is allowed) was answered with directions about how to get from Gamla Stan to the railway station. How do I get from the Viking Line terminal to Gamla Stan then? It seems I have to cross Skeppsbron at this point. How can I do it without walking along (only across) bicycle routes? JIP | Talk 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have you studied the area around Skeppsbron in Google Maps, using street view and the photo viewer? As I said before, I suggest you stick close to the dockside at first. When you get close to Skeppsbron, it looks like you might be able to cross under the road in relative peace and cross a plaza with a statue of a general on a horse - see this picture (you can see part of the statue is on the extreme right of the photo); but I am not really sure if this is possible.

Thanks, I will have to try this. Although as far as I can remember, I have always needed to walk along a bicycle route at this point, but have always managed to do it without problems. Still, I'd like to know if there is a pedestrian-only route available. JIP | Talk 21:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find sv:Slussen interesting. Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from the images I can see that this is indeed the part where I have previously felt I had to walk along a bicycle route. As far as I can remember, the exact place is pictured in the first photograph on the right. There is apparently something called "Gula gången" ("the yellow passageway") that is for pedestrians, I suppose that can be used to cross Skeppsbron to go from the dockside to Gamla Stan. Where is this "Gula gången" precisely located? JIP | Talk 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why _ What, and Who[edit]

Who cares anyway, and why do we imagine anyone does anyway? 92.30.198.131 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care what the answer to your question is? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, Art James is stirring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most glorious answer I've ever seen, 202.--mboverload @ 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP OP has exactly the one post, there's a good chance that it doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mboverload. It just seemed the most obvious response. (202.142.129.66 =) Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP also could have asked, "Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See purpose of life. 81.131.65.36 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because being curious is fun. Chevy monte carlo - alt 11:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can also get you into lots of trouble,as my impending court case will testify ;) Lemon martini (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we care about fun? ...And so on. 81.131.65.36 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See apathy, altruism, philosophy, good faith, truth, self-reference, self-refuting idea, assumption, knowledge, To Save A Life and mamihlapinatapai. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman Republic[edit]

How did a Roman become a candidate for a magisterial position? I understand that a magistrate was elected by one of the Assemblies and that a magistrate was a member of the Senate, but how did he become a candidate? Was this voted on by the Roman Senate? Was there some sort of Primary? A fee involved? 98.17.117.169 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I removed all your extraneous signatures; second, which magisterial position? And third, you might want to ask on the Humanities desk. There was an age requirement for each position, so that is one criterion. Have you looked at cursus honorum? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly anyone of the correct age and social standing could be nominated and elected to the magisterial positions. In practice, during most of the republic, the Roman aristocratic families simply passed the offices around amongst themselves. All major offices (IIRC) were term limited, but that didn't stop the same person from hopping from office to office throughout their political career. --Jayron32 05:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent novel Imperium by Robert Harris, first in a trilogy narrating the career of the Roman lawyer and statesman Cicero, describes the electoral and other processes required to attain various such posts in considerable detail. Although fiction, it appears to be based on as much actual historical evidence as is available. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]