Wealth Maker: Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: User talk:Mglovesfun

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]

Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

User talk:Mglovesfun

Apr 27th 2013, 01:40

Revision as of 17:04, 26 April 2013 (edit) Mglovesfun (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 01:40, 27 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (Talk \| contribs)
Line 632:		Line 632:
	:: All terms have a language, otherwise how can they be terms? I think that the problem in this case isn't that the term has no language, but rather that the formulation of the etymology isn't specific enough. What it really intends to say is that the term originates from an undetermined Sinitic language. That all of those languages happen to write it the same isn't terribly relevant... would we say "from Germanic ''[[bord]]''" or "from Slavic ''[[bog]]''"? No, we'd either specify which language was intended, or list several possible cognates for comparison. I think that should be done here too. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)		:: All terms have a language, otherwise how can they be terms? I think that the problem in this case isn't that the term has no language, but rather that the formulation of the etymology isn't specific enough. What it really intends to say is that the term originates from an undetermined Sinitic language. That all of those languages happen to write it the same isn't terribly relevant... would we say "from Germanic ''[[bord]]''" or "from Slavic ''[[bog]]''"? No, we'd either specify which language was intended, or list several possible cognates for comparison. I think that should be done here too. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
	::: That is I suppose a valid point. [[User:Mglovesfun\|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun\|talk]]) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)		::: That is I suppose a valid point. [[User:Mglovesfun\|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun\|talk]]) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	== [[resultar]] ==
		+
		+	Can you check the quotation you added to [[resultar]] in your book again? The following: "{{...}} a arquitetuira, somadas a rica história {{...}}" should probably be "a '''arquitetura''', somadas '''à''' rica história". — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Falai]])</sup>'' 01:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:40, 27 April 2013

/Archives

new messages at the bottom please!

I don't have a source telling me which language it went through on its way from Latin -- English is probably not a good choice (not much English influence in the Baltics historically), French might be better since it influenced pretty much everybody, German is an even better guess, given the importance of Baltic Germans in local history. But I can't say anything for sure, since my trusty Latvian Etymological dictionary doesn't mention obvious borrowings. Despite that, I rewrote the etymology and removed your etymology-stub template. I hope this was OK? --Pereru (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Redirecting CJKV character entries

Okay, that's perfectly fine. In fact, I was a bit conflicted about it myself (I only made those redirects because they were "partial character outline square" forms and had seen some other user make such a redirect. Does Wiktionary have any specific policy/guideline documentation about CJKV character pages? If so, I'd love to take a look at such pages. Regards, Bumm13 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Hello Martin, is the page for vencemen OK? I was tempted to try, but in the end I'm not going to translate the passage. --Wikt Twitterer (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume he's referencing the Albigensian Crusade. --Wikt Twitterer (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably. In Old Provençal all I've done is read 20 to 30 poems online. But it makes sense (vencre + -men). The Godefroy Dictionary does give an Old French vainquement here with a citation to mean 'victory' (in the sense of act of defeating an opponent). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Salut Mglovesfun, est ce que tu pourrais déplacer heθ vers he3 ? Les explications sont ici. Pamputt (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

C'est fait. Merci, Pamputt. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] AWB request

Could you please change all instances of the word Inflection in members of Category:Yiddish adjectives to Declension? It seems to be the preferred option now. Thank you very much! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Could do. Inflection is still used for Latin and I think also Ancient Greek. I have no objection to doing it, though. It's unlikely to be controversial as it's just too minor. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably it should be done for all three of them. I can vouch for Latin at least... nobody says "inflection". Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

!אַ שיינעם דאַנק My watchlist was totally flooded... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have zero main namespace entries in my watchlist. Mine are all User: and Wiktionary:. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gratefulness

I appreciate it, thank you. Nathanael Everton (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] flooding RCs

Hi Mglovesfun

could you use the account MglovesfunBot in order to edit/fix pages because you are flooding the RCs now.Thanks in advanca.--George^Animal. 13:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The reason is I'm making a lot of non-automatic edits as well. There are 153 pages left on my list, perhaps if I just save there and take a break that's the best option. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] New user

I'm not new, I'm there since 1 year. Ĉiuĵaŭde (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even less excuses for getting it completely wrong then. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] About user Fête

The steward Quentinv57 got involved in this case. Ĉiuĵaŭde (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw, I have no comment which is why I haven't made one. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] The recent changes to my contribs

Greetings and thanks for making those edits. Hope you don't mind a couple followup questions.

What is the qualifier that makes it a Noun over an initialism, given that they were all abbreviations? I know that an abbreviation is usually sounded out like UNICEF and an initialism is usually said letter by letter like USO, USA or CMMI but you changed a couple to nouns and I'm not sure why. They seemed more like initialisms or acronyms so I thought I would seek clarification.
Is there somewhere that defines what order the sections go in? I have some a wide variety of layouts as I reviewed different terms and it seems like there would be an order the sections should go in. I found the layout page but it doesn't seem like a lot of pages follow it. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the first point, I'll leave that to MG. As for the second point, that makes it clear that you haven't actually looked at the welcome links on your talkpage (the answer to this is at WT:ELE specifically). I recommend you read some, especially WT:WFW, before trying to get AWBship. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the issue hasn't been formally settled yet, but initialism, acronym (etc.) are really etymological categories. These aren't initialisms or proper nouns, they are proper nouns which are initialisms. I seem to think past discussions have been favorable about changing initialism to noun, verb (whatever) but it's a massive amount of work to roll it out across the whole wiki. I don't think it will ever happen, and probably there's not enough 'political will' to do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If a bot like Autoformat could tag all "bad" uses, we could at least start working on it. It's not going to happen if we don't ever start. —CodeCa t 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing with the political analogy, do we have a mandate to do this? Can we dig up the most recent discussion on this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I've been working on the transclusions of Template:en-initialism. That's one place to start. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes and for what its worth I did read those, but the answers aren't any clearer after doing so. For example:

WT:ELE seems to have a set pattern the sections should go, but there seems to be a lot of entries that don't follow it. For example, Is there some order the languages should go? Is it alpha order, English first, Most common usage language first, does it even matter? I have also seen a lot that doesn't follow the layout order in ELE. I frankly don't even know if its that big of a deal here as it is in ENWP. Maybe its not I don't know.
I have seen some links that start with [[w: and have the title and then a pipe and the title again like this [[w:Example|Example]] and some that start with {{w|Example}}. According to the instructions for Template:w it seems like the template is preferred.
The instructions say that Categorization templates are preferred over bare cats but I see both in use and some categories (like Category:en:Military ranks) doesn't appear to have a corresponding template. Although I could be wrong

Thanks in advance for the help trying to understand how things are done here. Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All of these are very good questions. A simple answer is that a lot of the time, ideal practice is very different from actual practice.

WT:ELE does say "An order for these headings is recommended, but variations in that order are also allowable."
Translingual first, then English, then all the other languages alphabetically
{{w}} and [[w:|]] are pretty much equivalent. I tend to use piped links to avoid a template call, others prefer {{w}}
Yes categorization templates are preferred over explicitly written categories, when such a template exists. Templates should not be created and/or used purely for categorization purposes, see Template talk:trees for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/January section 19. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, so going back to the out of order sections and the [[w: over {{W|, should I change those when I find them or leave them be? That is put the sections into the prescribed order and change [[W: to {{w|? I did some of the latter already but mostly where the piped title was the same as the [[w:Example name. Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Wanafucawi

I tried to add the word "Wanafucawi" to Wiktionary and twice it has been deleted. I don't know what i am doing wrong. Please let me know. I have a Website at Wanafucawi.com and I am trying to let people know what Wanafucawi is. I have also contacted Jeff, one of the other administrators, asking for clarification as well. Re-Posted to Wiktionary standards.

Currensb (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not a word. No amount of proper formatting will make it acceptable because we accept all words in all languages, but this is not a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that a "word" is not a "word" although it exists on the web and via google search.

You must have overlooked the text "Also make sure your entry meets our criteria for inclusion." (WT:CFI) when adding your entry. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"abcdefghijlkmnopqrstuvwxyz" exists on google (sic) but isn't a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just having fun! Loosen up a little. It makes for good Twitter discussion.

Hi there, I found you removed that sentence. I think it is necessary, because the word qandaq is always wrongly considered as a proverb. But I really do not know in which section I should white that sentence. Could you please help? I do not think removing can solve the problem. Without that sentence, maybe after several years, some one will think this entry is wrong, and write "this is a proverb". --Hahahaha哈 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What you actually said was one specific dictionary lists it as a pronoun. The relevance was very unclear. Also do you mean proverb? Feel free to add it back but in a way that users can understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi what is the total required for me to do to get the edit correct is it simply the old welsh/middle welsh or is there more i need to do? cheers Vardasnejonas (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)vardasnejonas

I don't understand, the total of what? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] new vids

Good to see some new vids finally! Keep them up! —This unsigned comment was added by Wonderfool (talk • contribs).

When I can be bothered, I really need to do some in a bigger environment. There are a few four ring tricks that I can do kneeling down, but five rings is out of the question. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] More AWB

I have a bunch of AWB mass editing requests piling up, do you have time/interest to do them now? Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Roughly now, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yippee! Current interests: converting all {{head|ti|noun}} or {{head|ti|sc=Ethi|noun}} or {{head|ti|noun|sc=Ethi}} into {{ti-noun}}. Also, tagging any Yiddish translations that use the alt= parameter of {{t}}, {{t+}}, or {{t-}} with {{attention|yi}}. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The first one is done, the second one can't be done using only regular expressions. I could find some instances of it, but not all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Which one can't be done using regex? Kumioko (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MG! @Kumioko: I believe he means tagging certain Yiddish translations with {{attention|yi}}. PS: If you're interesting in helping with that, also tagging Yiddish transliterations that use the characters c w q j , would be very helpful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WT:T:AZH#Toneless pinyin usage notes, could you please do the replacement of whatever is under the Usage notes header to {{cmn-toneless-note}}? Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You would know if this is OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I know! If the 2012 newspaper article is legit, and we can see a copy of it, that would be one citation. Might just be a humorously coined collective noun that nobody ever uses. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found what looks like a valid Usenet hit here. It looks like a term that might have been coined as a mention-only term like that's since been used, a bit like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Some missing French verbs

Hi. In User:DTLHS/WantedPages there are a bunch of French verbs at the 36-links level. I really haven't got the time - do you think you could have a go at them? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer is yes. Not promising to do all of them, nor when I'll do them, but surely I can do some of them. These are linked to mainly because of KeeneBot and its successors creating correct conjugations for correct verbs we don't have yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But also a couple of hundred speedy deletions. Ahhhh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know, I reverted your deletion of the informal use of "ta" in Chinese, to mean "he or she". Popular informal usage is precisely that: informal. No one goes to the trouble of inputting "ā" required for "tā" because it is not easy to input. The links I provided in the summary are examples (http://cppcc.people.com.cn/n/2013/0201/c34948-20401926.html and http://news.sun0769.com/opinion/dg/201302/t20130201_1743442.shtml). A quick search on Baidu for "ta们" (the plural) will quickly show the same (searching for "ta" on its own yields too many English results, or results about English). - Estoy Aquí (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just found out it's also listed as the last entry on Chinese Wikipedia for the w:zh:ta

And I have reverted back. Sorry, but our toneless pīnyīn entries are just directing users to the pages with tones. People say 他 with a first tone, not a neutral tone, so there should not be an entry for it as if it had a neutral tone. If you can find a reference that explicitly states that it is said with a neutral tone, then I'll consider it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a pinyin phonetic transcription of the character: it's used as though it were a character itself, in the middle of texts otherwise written in Chinese characters. That's why I wrote it under "pronoun" not "pinyin". - Estoy Aquí (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:TTPS. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link that was helpful; didn't know that. But I notice you didn't move it, you just deleted it (unless I'm mistaken). In any case, describing "tā" as being used the way "ta" is, is inaccurate, because using it isn't used for the casual use that "ta" is (Chinese Wikipedia doesn't even write it in the description). - Estoy Aquí (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We do accept Mandarin in the Latin script when attested, see CD#Mandarin. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is attested widely. Though I admit I'm not fully versed in the threshold for Wiktionary. It's listed on English Wikipedia, with sources w:Gender-neutral_pronoun#Chinese. It may better belong at "TA" (though the caps are there, just because its easier to deactivate the pinyin IME temporarily by writing caps). - Estoy Aquí (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a really unusual situation, so I think it will need a wider discussion. But before we go through the trouble of starting that, can you ensure that it is actually attestable? I myself could only find two books that use it, and they actually spell it TA. Please see WT:ATTEST for more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like your bot is trying to change {{l|fro|...}} to {{l/fro|...}}, but what it's succeeding in changing it to is the meaningless {{l|/fro|...}}. —An gr 16:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the word is 'fuck'. Good news, is it's easily fixable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] French linking templates

I noticed you created {{l/fr}}, {{l/frm}} and {{l/fro}}. I don't think that these templates should have anything like genders or glosses in them. They should have only the bare minimum (that is, anything that all links for that language should always have), so that they can be transcluded many times without problems. —CodeCa t 20:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose if performance is the number one priority, just [[mot#French|mot]] would be even better, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that no longer includes the language attribute. The fastest correct way would be <span lang="fr">[[mot#French|mot]]</span> but that's a lot more to type. —CodeCa t 14:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think these rollbacks are in error, please leave a message on my talkpage. Yes, these rollbacks are mistakes. Wikipedia has a page named Targeting. As you can tell from these descriptions, the definitions I put in Wikitionary encompass the descriptions found in Wikipedia. A targeter is someone who earns a living doing targeting --198.103.184.76 21:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The targeting edit might have been ok, I was being cautious by reverting it, but the targeter edit effectively didn't have a definition so it had to go. However the targeting edit to me looks like the verb. Any evidence of google books:"targetings"? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] European Portuguese forms

Dear Mglovesfun,

You addressed me the following message:

"I'm sure you already know that the Portuguese Wiktionary calls these forms obsolete, but only since 1990. My experience of the French spelling reform, also of 1990, is that the reforms aren't taken very seriously, in fact lots of people consider them officially recommended misspellings (I was once told off for using gout which is a 1990 spelling reform). Anyway, is that what you're proposing for words like activo? Not obsolete just replaced by officially recommended forms which nobody uses anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)"

The context of the 1990 spelling reform of the Portuguese language is quite different from that of the 1990 spelling reform of the French language. The intricacies of it would make for a very long discussion.

I am Portuguese, and I can tell you that the Portuguese civil society strongly opposes this reform.

The scientific community disavowed this reform. Over the years, several technical reports and specialist opinions have been made public, the great majority of them opposing said reform and exposing severe incongruencies and defects in the technical foundations and the prescriptions of this reform.

Several Portuguese institutions have publicly declared that they will not adopt it. Several publishers and printed media have done the same. A petition against said reform collected 130,000 signatures. Private citizens have lodged a complaint against this reform to the "Provedoria de Justiça", wherein they argue the inconstitutionality of said reform. A popular legislative initiative for the abrogation of this reform is currently gathering signatures. Open letters have been addressed to the Government and the Parliament. Several members of parliament have denounced this reform. As a result of this pressure, the Parliament has set up official public hearings to decide on the future of this reform.

Mozambique has not ratified this treaty, and officially continues to use the European pre-reform spelling. Government officials have publicly said that they will not tolerate any form of pressure to adopt this reform and that the cost of its implementation may be too great for their country to bear.

Angola refuses to ratify this treaty, calling for extensive corrections in 20 of the 21 bases of the reform. European pre-reform spelling remains the officially prescribed orthography.

The Brazilian civil society has pressured the Brazilian Government to postpone the date of enforcement of this reform until the 1st of January 2016, and many officials are now calling for a revision of the reform.

The other countries that have Portuguese as an official language have done next to nothing to implement this reform, and continue to use the European pre-reform spelling.

This is only a very brief summary of the current state-of-affairs. Considering all of this, you will agree that those forms which are characteristic of the European (more accurately, Euro-Afro-Asian) pre-reform spelling of the Portuguese language are far from being obsolete. The fact that this spelling remains official in Angola and Mozambique would suffice to reject such a qualifier, but, in addition, I believe there is a strong possibility that this reform will be officially rejected or significantly revised.

The Portuguese Wiktionary's attitude towards this reform is far from being impartial or factually correct. It is dominated by a clear pro-reform agenda, negating these (and other) facts and undertakings, as well as the 'fluidity' of the current status of this reform.

Yours faithfully,

Pedro da Silva Coelho Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're agreeing with me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely. You stated that forms that this reform would render obsolete could be viewed as "replaced by officially recommended forms which nobody uses anyway". It is not true that they have been officially replaced. In Portugal, their legality is under attack. In Angola and Mozambique, they are not official. It is also untrue that nobody uses them: for example, the Portuguese and the Brazilian governmental institutions use (different versions) of them. One of the most ridiculous and pernicious aspects of this reform is the fact that in Portugal -- where we previously had one stable orthographic norm, derived from the 1945 Portuguese-Brazilian Orthographic Convention -- we now have 5 (or 7, depending on the chosen counting criteria) mutually divergent proposed orthographic norms derived from the 1990 reform... Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As a contributor at the Portuguese Wiktionary, I think there is some misunderstanding here. Those pre-1990 reform ortographies are not labelled "obsolete" there. There is a notice at the top mentioning that that form pre-dates the reform and what is the (new) ortography according to it. The fact that you see most of these pages contents referring to the new forms is just for simplicity sake, by avoiding duplication of contents across many equivalent pages. You may see the same scheme between Portuguese and Brazilian ortographies, which doesn't mean one of them is obsolete.

P.S.: I'm not pro-reform. I'm approximately neutral about it. And I totally agree with Pedrodasilvacoelho.

Malafaya (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Malafaya,

We are discussing spelling forms that are qualified as obsolete in the English language Wiktionary. No mention was made as to their status in the Portuguese language Wiktionary. That said, I would like to point out that, in the Portuguese language Wiktionary, the spelling forms affected by the reform are marked with the following heading: "Esta página mostra um verbete com ortografia anterior ao Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990 que entrou em vigor em primeiro de janeiro de 2009 no Brasil. A forma correta de grafar esta palavra conforme as novas regras desse Acordo é ação.". This heading mentions none but the date of enforcement of the spelling reform in Brazil, ignoring all other countries that have Portuguese as an official language. I believe that said heading is inadequate and that the following fragment should be suppressed: "que entrou em vigor em primeiro de janeiro de 2009 no Brasil". Qua my position towards this spelling reform, I am against it on scientific grounds. I have read all of the technical reports and specialist opinions that have been made public and to which I have been able to have access. As a result thereof, I can only conclude that this reform is unacceptable. Additionally, I believe that orthographic systems should be essentially conservative, especially in graphocentric -- so to say -- societies, such as ours, where text is omnipresent: reforms should be very well thought, be made only to solve serious problems, and target the least possible amount of lexical elements. This reform is so broad, that it foments de facto illiteracy in societies where literacy is already precarious: if this reform became definitive, scores of people would be rendered illiterate by decree. I construe this as an assault on the rights of citizens. Furthermore, its clumsy implementation in Portugal has resulted in a state that could be described as graphic chaos (vide, e.g., what I wrote above about the 5 -- or 7 -- distinct and mutually divergent proposed spelling norms). Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that text was written when there was an actual timeline for its adoption in Brazil and no other country, hence the reference to it. The text itself was not updated since then. I just proposed removing that reference to dates and countries, and any text that may seem to favour its use regardless of the country you're in. It was unanimously approved so I committed the change. Whether the reform is a good reform or not, that's another matter. Cumprimentos, Malafaya (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I month or two ago I created {{superseded spelling of}} for these cases. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have argued above, the forms herein discussed are not obsolete but official in Angola and Mozambique, and co-official (for the time being, pending future political ebbs and flows, so to say) in Portugal and other countries that have Portuguese as an official language and that follow the European spelling variant. Therefore, the qualifier "superseded" does not apply. Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? "Superseded" does not mean something is no longer used. Windows 7 has been superseded by Windows 8, but Windows 7 is still widely used. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You ask why not... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb "(to) supersede" -- from which the adjective "superseded" derives -- displays two groups of senses: "I. Senses involving postponing, ending, or desisting from action" and "II. trans. Senses involving replacement." I fail to see how the current status of the aforementioned orthographic forms can fall within the scope of these definitions. One simple reason would be, e.g., that such spellings have not been superseded in Angola and Mozambique. In said countries, the orthographical forms that you propose to classify as "superseded" are official and the spellings proposed by this reform simply do not exist. Do you propose to supersede Angola and Mozambique? If one puts aside what I have just written about Angola and Mozambique, we would still be left with other reasons that contravene your proposal. You seem to act under the assumption that this reform is consolidated and definitive. There can be no doubt that that is not true; this reform is by no means consolidated and, as such, it would be precipitous to diachronically classify the pertinent spellings as "superseded". Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many strawmen. I recommend you continue this discussion here. Discussing such an important issue in someone's talk page is unlikely to lead to any result and bothers the user. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Straw-men, you say? I must say that I do not appreciate your dismissive demeanour, Ungoliant. Your usage of the qualifier "superseded" clearly lacks accuracy: this does not bode well for the Portuguese Wiktionary's lexicographical qualities (Wiktionary of which you so would like to be the dictator, as you yourself have stated). This said, I will abstain from further comments on the matter of your attitude, out of respect for Mglovesfun. If indeed my writings needlessly burdened Mglovesfun's talk page, I offer my apologies. Pedrodasilvacoelho (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my talk page isn't the right forum for this, move to WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel form

Parallel form - a form that exists in parallel (at the same time). E.g. a full equivalent rather than a "lesser" alternative form. I can find the phrase/word in both Norwegian and Swedish on the Internet (parallellform); though it might well be that it is never used in English with this kind of meaning. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternative forms aren't necessarily 'lesser'. So for our purposes, they are the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

One might say so, yet I am not fond of the formulation (a wording such as e.g. "same as X" sounds a lot more neutral, if a bit weird). I was thinking about starting a topic on it, but haven't bothered yet. Using the template for the time being. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Why the hell are you deleting my userpage?

Explain yourself

WT:USER, it's standard to delete user pages with no usable content. WT:NOT "Wiktionary is not a free wiki host or webspace provider." Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What the hell does that got to do with this? I was in the process of adding content to my userpage but you deleted it in minutes or seconds after I undeleted it!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what you did it not authorised at all. You jumped the gun. I was right in the middle of adding templates and so forth!!!!!!!!!!. Now please undelete the page ASAP. Thanks in advance

I will undelete this in good faith but... good faith only lasts for so long. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I edited the nor page badly the first time, but I undid it and corrected the mistake. Now I see you undid it. I'm not sure what I should do now. (Calusarul (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Ah, sorry, now I see. I was on the Nor page, not on the nor page :) Sorry (Calusarul (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Yes, if you're from Wikipedia, then nor and Nor are the same thing, but not here. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Looking at the 恭喜發財 page - The heading 'Mandarin' at the top is incorrect. I am going to revert your last edit, as the heading 'Mandarin' refers to one dialect of Chinese - The page '恭喜發財' also is written in Traditional Chinese, which is not used in Mandarin. The Mandarin characters are '恭喜发财'.

Mandarin is also written in traditional Chinese characters, especially in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. —CodeCa t 14:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The languages are grouped wrong, though. I've submitted it to WT:RFC. Please do not remove information without discussion in the future, as this will be reverted. You can fix entries that have errors, but do not remove information. —CodeCa t 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be at RFC, if more languages are needed that isn't a cleanup issue but an adding more languages issue (sounds silly saying it out loud, but apparently I need to). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Mandarin entry does need cleaning up because it has things that it shouldn't, and is therefore not formatted correctly? —CodeCa t 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To the anon, removing the Mandarin because 恭喜發財 is also used in Cantonese is a bit like removing the English from point because it's also used in French. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@CodeCat yes you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

J'ai ajouté le mot en français moderne (bien qu'en français moderne il ne soit utilisé que pour désigner le métier médiéval), ai-je bien fait ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes you were right to add a modern French section because it has three correct citations. Should've replied a bit sooner, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Was there some debate about this that I missed? I am happy with merging Anglo-Norman sections into Old French, but it is essential to maintain Anglo-Norman as a code for etymology sections, even if it links to Old French pages. The Anglo-Norman forms were often very different from 'standard' Old French and they are of crucial importance for English etymology. Ƿidsiþ 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news then as that was the consensus, WT:RFDO#Template:xno. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Internet slang acronyms as interjections?

I was wondering about your thoughts on acronyms (or initialisms) vs interjections for internet slang. For example AIUI and GDGD are both marked as interjections and there isn't even any mention of AIUI being an initialism. It is that the way the word is used (interjection) takes precedence to its origin (initialism)?

Pandersb (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)pandersb

Good summary actually, the origin should be in the etymology, in the form of {{initialism of}} or just as an overt category at the bottom, e.g. Category:English initialisms. 'Origin' and 'definitions' are separate ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Language-specific linking templates

I'd prefer it if you didn't create any more of these for now. We started working on them before Lua was announced. But now that it will be implemented at the end of the day, these templates may not actually be necessary anymore because {{l}} could be just as fast once it's converted to Lua. And then we'd have to convert all of them back again... —CodeCa t 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Serbo-Croatian is not a real language

I'd like to know why did you merged again the list of Croatian and Serbian palindromes on Appendix:Palindromic words? The Serbo-Croatian language is a historic language construct which does not exist any more. Most citizens of Croatia and Serbia, as well as language experts, agree that these languages are different although speakers of both languages understand each other quite well. Croatian and Serbian languages have many different words. The differences were present in the list of palindromes, as well as in the list of palindromic phrases. --Rprpr (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty simple really, they are considered a single language by linguists. The difference between them is political not linguistic, and political consensus can change, which is what you mean by 'historic language construct which does not exist any more'. People who are pro separating Bosnian, Croatia and Serbian also tend to make really good arguments for merging them. People seem to be afraid that if Wiktionary treats them as separate languages, Yugoslavia might reform. Whoa, what a minute, two or more countries can speak the same language and be adjacent to each other without merging. The US and Canada manage it. Also Austria and Germany, France and Belgium (and so on). Other people say that Muslims speak Serbian and Catholics speak Croatian. So the languages aren't to do with Serbia and Croatia but with Islam and Catholicism. This also means that Serbian Catholics actually speak Croatian not Serbian. So someone should tell Novak Djokovic he's speaking Croatian, even though he's Serbian. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] There's no Chechen Swadesh list on Wiktionary!

It's a shame! The Chechen language is an important language! I found a Chechen-English (& English-Chechen) dictionary in Latin alphabet. http://ingush.narod.ru/chech/awde/ Stephen says: You must find a Chechen dictionary with Cyrillic script./ Why? He is NOT talking logical! He is saying that he will delete it if I write in Latin alphabet!!! You can look at User talk:Stephen G. Brown and Appendix talk:Swadesh lists. Regards, Böri (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Chechen is written in Cyrillic script. If you wrote an English Swadesh list in Hebrew script he'd do the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against the Cyrillic script, but the Chechens are NOT a Slavic people! So it is NOT their own script! And if you look at Appendix:Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages you'll see "Romanized Arabic", like that you can use "Romanized Chechen"! THERE'S NO CHECHEN SWADESH LIST ON WIKTIONARY AND IT'S A SHAME! I'm saying this! (It's like: "No Finnish Swadesh List on Wiktionary!!! Because we don't care about this language!" It's as meaningless as like that! But you didn't understand this fact!!!)If Stephen wants the Cyrillic script, say him "Go and find it!" Böri (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether you think Chechen should be written in Cyrillic script is irrelevant. It is. I might not like the fact that Latin is written in Latin script but it wouldn't change anything. Don't put your opinions before the facts. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Even most of the Chechen people don't like the Cyrillic script! (and you should make a list with the Cyrillic script...I'm not against it. and you can use my dictionary as ""Romanized Chechen"!) And what about other "North Caucasian languages" (= Circassian/Adyghe, Abhaz, Ingush, Avar, Lak, Lezgic languages)? Do you really care about them? :( Böri (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about them any more or less than the thousands of other languages I know nothing about. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages contains romanizations of the terms lists, not Arabic and Hebrew in Latin script on their own. It's highly recommended for non-Latin script languages to provide an unlinked romanization, but not only a romanization. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't care about them any more, etc." = Saying this is NOT a good thing! Maybe the Russians don't want to see anything about the Chechen language on Wiktionary! (How do I know?) The Chechen language is a language like German. Saying that "I don't care about the Chechen language" is like saying: "I don't care about the German language"... Böri (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Most of it is nonsense. If you have nothing relevant to say, please stop talking. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You and Stephen are talking nonsense. The Chechen language is as important as German. And the Urartian language was also a North Caucasian language. There are Chechen-Urartian cognates. (so the Chechen language is also important because of this!) You don't know anything about the languages! But you think so! Regards, Böri (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just said I know nothing about Chechen. I didn't comment on its importance (necessarily subjective). I think you're either not reading my comments or just ignoring them as your own opinion is too important to you. My talk page is not a soapbox for your opinions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "Do you actually read the nominations before you comment? And no I'm not being sarcastic"

Why do you find it imperative to come to my talkpage and lambaste me for the way I vote on deletion discussions? I'm perfectly entitled to vote "keep" in any deletion discussion, I usually give solid reasons for doing so, and if you think that commenting on my page is going to change my tendencies toward keeping stuff, you're wasting your time. Same with SOP: I continue to believe that it's a ridiculous policy, and no number of inane examples will convince me otherwise. It's also impossible for me to tell what RfD in particular you were talking about, because you tacked in on to a months-old discussion. I suggest refraining from criticizing my votes on my talk page Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Any way I can talk you into reading nominations before replying to them? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I do read them. You need to drop the matter RIGHT NOW, else you will be HOUNDing Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is my talk page, nobody's forcing you to reply. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Also, you have no right to revert me removing comments from my talkpage. I can remove anyone's comments as I see fit. You are becoming a bully, plain and simple. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, you're trying to make yourself immune to the rules of the wiki by claiming any contact with you whatsoever is harassment. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be able to remove anyone's comments, but I'm perfectly entitled to add it back (no removing of valid content from pages). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Please point to where that's a policy at all, and specifically to where that applies to User talk pages (Hint:it doesn't). And I am hardly claiming that any contact with me whatsoever is harassment. What is harassment is that you both criticize perfectly valid votes both at RfD and on my talk page, and then you do it over and over again. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

He never said it was a policy. —CodeCa t 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just. Stop. Goddamn. WHINING! If he wants his talk page to be like that, let him be. Next time he trips over, you can use that as a reason to not warn him before blocking. -- Liliana • 20:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If he blocks me, I'll request unblock on the grounds that he has some personal vendetta against me Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I come here this afternoon and what do I see? Drama all over the place! And all that over a little bit that normally needn't bother anyone at all! Sigh... -- Liliana • 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Anyone who "opposes SOP" would presumably want entries for big building, chubby old man, and the car that I own. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd accept them as the price to be paid to get entries like television show... Why does every SOP argument always end in people like you giving inane examples like those? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a rule, and must be applied globally or not at all. We can't make each decision based on whether you like it (actually, at RFD, we can, but only if you carry the vote). Equinox ◑ 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Liliana-60 you don't need to participate in this discussion if you don't want to. Also I don't have a personal vendetta against Purplebackpack89, it's pretty much the opposite, I can't treat him/her differently to the way I treat anyone else. If he/she genuinely feels harassed, that's regrettable, but the wiki comes first. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In no way are my keep votes threatening the wiki. There is no grounds for a block of any duration based solely on my keep votes Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a block, only conversation. Though apparently that's out of the question. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] a correction

Hi. There's no such word as "çıncalık" in Turkish language. If you ask this word to any Turkish person, 99.9% of them will declare that "I've never heard this word". It's just a reproduced word, so it has to be deleted. I'm still dealing with these people who want to reproduce unknown words in order to fight with Turkish words of foreign origin. Best regards.--Sabri76'^talk 23:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this a correction of? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The correction is deletion of this page.--Sabri76'^talk 07:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well since I don't speak Turkish I really can't make decisions on speedy deletions. If "99.9%" of Turkish people haven't heard the word, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, it could be rare, regional or archaic. Any admin who doesn't speak Turkish is not going to want to delete this page out of process as they won't be able to judge if it may be valid or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sabri76 says that he checks the TDK Büyük Türkçe Sözlük, if one word is not there, he is deleting that word. He deleted even the word 'alınık' which has 900+k results in Google Search, because it is not found in that dictionary. But he is not deleting the word 'püskevit' while it is not found in TDK BTS. Double standard... --Furious (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Devlet Bahçeli (president of Nationalist Movement Party in Turkey) mispronunced the word "bisküvi" as "püskevit". Then some people began to mock with this word (or with Bahçeli himself), while some other people tried to tell it was not a 'blunder'. Sabri76's user name has 76 which is the traffic code of Iğdır city. As I know, Bahçeli's Party is the 2nd most voted party there. The people who are Kurds mostly vote for BDP (which is a Kurdish Nationalist Party), while the people who are Turks (who speak Azerbaijani, like Sabri76) mostly vote for Bahçeli's Nationalist Movement Party. Perhaps he is not deleting that word because of political reasons, and if so, he may be using his authorization according to / for his own political notion. --Furious (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Furious, you are not making any sense. Sabri is not an admin and has not deleted anything. Making assumptions about Sabri's political orientation really has nothing to do with whether püskevit (or anything else) is an acceptable word. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sabri tagged the entry with delete, I reverted that change for reasons I've given in this discussion. Use WT:RFV guys, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Czech words suffixed with -ství

Can you restore the category? It is no longer empty. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] tripent

Y delete the page? http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tripent&action=edit&redlink=1

thanks if reply.

220.255.1.133 12:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a sandbox page. If it means something, fine, it needs

  ==English==    ===Noun===  {{en-noun}}    # definition

Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Geo-contextual

Why did you delete the page? http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=geo-contextual&action=submit

Please get back to me about this.

Pretty much what it says on the tin. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you didn't define it, and that's sort of the objective of a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=geo-contextual&action=submit Checking in on this definition again, the word exists, and people use it in internet articles...perhaps you can help me to properly define this word, it would really be awesome if you could get back to me about this asap.

WT:CFI#Attestation, depends what you mean by 'internet articles' really. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the source looks a bit ugly, but the following that I used at both 愛#Japanese and 芝#Japanese was fully intentional, and unfortunately your fixes weren't fixes, as they screwed up the layout.

  <div class="NavFrame">  <div class="NavHead" style="text-align:left">Names</div>  <div class="NavContent">  {| border="0" width="100%" class="Derived terms"  |-  | bgcolor="#FFFFFF" valign="top" width="96%" align=left |    ...omitted...    {{der-bottom}}

Note that {{der-bottom}} expands to:

  |}  </div></div>

... thereby closing the table and the two open <div> tags from the start of the section.

I know this is a bit hacky, but I couldn't think of a better way of folding away the very looooooong list of proper nouns. Japanese names can be wildly creative in their spelling and use of kanji, leading to excessively long lists that make the page unnavigable.

Is there a template that I've missed that handles the header portion? If not, should I create one? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a better solution, no, other than using |}</div></div> instead of one of the bottom templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done on those two entries. Next time that To-Do report updates, it should be empty. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] re Feed the Beast

Yes, I think the deletion is in error. It is common usage here (USA.) Perhaps only urban. If you have strong feelings about it fine. But we have been saying it for years. Tfcallahan1 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely should be at feed the beast, not beast. Beast on its own does not mean work (or does it?) Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Our coverage of Portuguese sucks

That's it, really. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I've got German up to speed, I'll have a think about it. I mean, it's only just another romance language - should be a doddle. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Just as a test, I analyzed the contents of the Portuguese Wikipedia entry for hydrogen - 334 different lowercase words that are not in our Wiktionary (list temporarily in the sandbox). There is definitely lots of work to be done. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Of the hundred most common Portuguese words, we lacked six (há, esta, lo, quer, quê and favor) until recently. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tara! I have made a start. I have botified plurals of existing nouns, and forms of existing adjectives. I am dipping my toes into the addition of new terms (starting from the sandbox) - If I'm not 100% sure, I am just leaving them to others. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] monde (French adjective)

Is this OK? (Not in French Wiktionary) perhaps he meant mondé? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably! Godefroy lists it as Old French, the citations go up to 1596, and we define Modern French as from 1611 onwards. Etymologically it works too, from Latin mundus. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Votes/2013-02/Typographic vs ASCII punctuation

You have forgotten to sign. I would add "unsigned" myself so as not to bother you with this, but a proper signature is better for a vote, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] The recent changes to my contribs

Sorry I'm not much familiar with the protocol here but no doubt you can deal. I just entered a def for reconomy, a word now being used by at least hundreds of people around the globe as a proper noun related to various organizations and also to my certain knowledge used to describe work developing local marketplaces. I've been told its a good word and not one of the the thousands of people who've seen its use on my own web pages, for example, has suggested that they don't get it. Checking the urban dictionary I saw only "recession reconomy", which troubles me because it's counter to the intent that the many people involved with these orgs consistently intuit. I believe your deletion of my entry is inappropriate, but course, it's long been true that the few, not the many, create new words, because they have power, and perhaps that holds here.kparcell (talk)

WT:CFI#Attestation, the same rules apply to Reconomy as to any other word. Also is it Reconomy or reconomy, seems you can't decide. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

siva or shiva ia a Indian God. worshiped by all indians.one can see links regarding siva in telugu and kannada wiktionary. Thanking you.Palagiri (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean Siva/Shiva which are distinct from the entries siva/shiva. I won't comment on the rest of what you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "VL." isn't a language code.

Additional discussion: Template talk:recons#etyl:

danger?diff=19569608 doesn't work properly, and I don't think it's even supposed to work; we don't recognize "Vulgar Latin" as a language. I see that there are a bunch of Vulgar Latin reconstructed-entry appendices, but I think they should be Latin appendices (just like how attested Vulgar Latin entries are treated as Latin entries). If the Latin editors feel otherwise, then they need to assign some sort of distinct language code for Vulgar Latin, so that it can be tagged properly. —Ruakh_TALK 20:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What doesn't work properly? And whoa you're a latecomer to this, the first such appendix I'm aware of was back in October 2010. Surely you've not failed to notice this for two and a half years. Also why is this on my talk page? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: what doesn't work properly: It ends up calling {{Eror}}, because there's no language-template for the pseudocode VL.. Re: not noticing for two and a half years: It's possible that I've come across one at some point, but if so, I guess it didn't really register until now (when I saw the pages you added to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Eror) that it's inconsistent with our general practice. Re: why on your talk-page: Because it was in response to an edit of yours. (I didn't realize at first that the problem is as much with {{recons}} as with your edit.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a policy issue; note that gem-pro and ine-pro also aren't languages but are allowed in appendices. Not sure how I feel about Appendix:Vulgar Latin/montania being moved to Appendix:Latin/montania (and so on). Not saying I would oppose it. And even if I did oppose it, I'd only be one editor - more input needed, A&E has been one of the main contributors to these appendix pages. Also the Eror template can be avoided by adding sc=Latn inside recons. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Language sections

When we notice that these links point to a section that isn't there, should we create them, even in stub form, to acknowledge that the word is also present in that dialect? To give a place for others to begin adding info if we lack it ourselves? Etym (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If the word exists, yes! Some sort of minimum verification is needed. I'm reading a book in Portuguese at the moment, so I have to be careful what I add here from that book. Stuff I add, it has to be pretty obvious what the word means from the context, perhaps backed up by the Portuguese Wiktionary or a presence in one of our translation tables. No entry is better than an erroneous one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Han-Nom 𪜚

obvious troll

Thank you for reformatting the entry I submitted. But shouldn't a character entry show readers what the character looks like and explain what it means? To get 𪜚 to display, you need to use an appropriate font, like <font size="4" face="HanaMinB">𪜚</font>. (This is a problem generally for extension C and D Unicode characters.) Another issue is that Hán tự is an obscure word even in Vietnamese, never mind in English. I recommend referring to Sino-Vietnamese characters as Nom (Nôm), or as Han-Nom (Hán-Nôm). "Han" means the document is written in Chinese, "Nom" in Vietnamese. See here. Kauffner (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create the template {{han tu form of}} I just use it. It's a policy argument and should be at WT:BP or perhaps Wiktionary talk:About Vietnamese as it only refers to one language. Also the font you show isn't working for me. Etymology is appropriate (I may have removed that in haste while trying to format everything else). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, you can look at Britannica. They have an entry for "chu nom" ("a vehicle for writing in vernacular Vietnamese"). There is no mention of "Han tu." Hán tự is the Vietnamese romanization of hanzi/kanji/hanja, not a word in common use. Kauffner (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing. Would you mind cutting back on the insulting edit summaries?[1] Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Who says anything about me not believing you? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Insult is a subjective term. You can feel insulted about anything you like, I have no power to stop you. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This implies I'm crazy, imagining insults. You are going keeping dialing this up? I really have no idea why you started this, or what I might have done to offend you. Why don't I think you believe me? Because you keep adding the Han tu nonsense to entries, even though I have explained this is mistaken Wikipedia jargon that no one else uses. Kauffner (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not listening. MG made it clear: "It's a policy argument and should be at WT:BP". If you want to do that, fine, but if you're just here to have an argument, please leave. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Middle French pentacle

Hi, you said: "FWIW I found a 1547 citation for Middle French pentacle which actually predates the Trésor de langue française informatisé's 'before 1555' one." Forgive me for missing it, but I can't see this citation anywhere in the entry, talk or citation pages. Could you please point me to it? Thanks, Fuzzypeg (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Using http://books.google.fr, search pentacle, go to recherche avancée (advanced search) and put between 1340 and 1610. It finds this. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you kindly add "See " for each definition line, please - before the links (one or multiple)? If you don't object. My edit was clumsy. It's not italised (biāozhǔn) and I couldn't get it to work with named parameters properly, so I removed it from there (example: yánlì). This would make Romaji, Gothic and Pinyin all look similar, unless you against it or there's a strong opposition to this approach elsewhere. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this request current? It seems to have been done. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's current. I tried but it didn't quite work. In biāozhǔn "See " is not italic and it didn't work on yánlì, so I removed it. The latter uses named parameters (Perhaps named parameters should be deprecated but I don't how often they are used). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's because See needed to be before all of the span tags. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also I notice it doesn't use {{Hans}} and {{Hant}} anymore. If that's the case, it should be possible to merge some of the parameters to avoid unnecessarily uses of if#s. Any objections to this? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There's some difference in Hans and Hant but the named parameters are seldom used in reality, so it's fine by me. Are you able to make a list of entries with named parameters? Before changing the template, someone needs to make sure it's removed but I have no idea how many there with trad./simp. difference. I'll make the change if there are not too many. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The parameters tra and sim don't need to be removed, they can just be made equivalent to 1 and 2. That was the bit I had difficulty coding in the first place, that either tra and sim or 1 and 2 have to be given. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is no impact on any entries like yánlì (with named params), you can go ahead and change to make it simpler. I changed both Hans and Hant to Hani before. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No; really the only reason to have them separate was to use Hans and Hant... if everything uses Hani then it's just extra work for the servers with literally no change to the end product. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It now doesn't check if 1 and 2 are the same, but I'm not sure if it should. That's really just error recognition, not a display function. Specifically, {{pinyin reading of|tra=肌肉|sim=肌肉}}, it used to recognize that the first and the second parameter are the same and merge them, now it doesn't. Debatably, it shouldn't do that anyway, but it is possible to check. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Something happened. All pinyin(?) is now in Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

yánlì is not categorise properly (uses named parameters). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Will check some time tomorrow. I'm going to bed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The first problem was just a single missing vertical bar, basically it tagged all pinyin entries with Chinese character for attention, when of course, it it supposed to tag all of them without Chinese characters. The second I fixed by copying over from a previous version of the template. I'd put some syntax in the wrong was which was causing ambiguity. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job, thanks for fixing. I will probably look more after pinyin entries, so let me know if there's anything weird. I haven't seen cases where two parameters are identical, like 2=tra=肌肉|3=sim=肌肉. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing is wrong. Category:Mandarin pinyin entries without Hanzi is empty. Maybe it's better to go the previous version? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although... I just copied that bit across from the previous version of the template, it shouldn't be wrong, but it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to change ELE to allow such entries with no definition lines? —CodeCa t 17:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you mean suizen#Japanese? It has a definition line...?

The relevant vote pages are:

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So there is no consensus? —CodeCa t 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Romanization_and_definition_line]] vote hasn't happened yet, so your question seems a bit premature.

If you just mean among the folks editing romanized Japanese entries and using {{ja-romaji}}, I haven't seen any disagreement, so broadly, yes, there seems to be consensus among these editors that this template format is acceptable.

However, you ask about changing WT:ELE to "allow such entries with no definition lines". Yet, these entries already *have* definition lines? suizen#Japanese has it right there: "1. See すいぜん". I must assume then that you mean in the wikitext?

If so, I must point out that WT:ELE doesn't explicitly say anywhere that definitions require a separate line starting with # in the wikitext -- only that definition entries should be properly numbered. So it would actually necessitate a change to WT:ELE to require separate def lines in the wikitext. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think making all these changes to articles is a bit premature. I don't even see any vote about changing WT:ELE, and the status quo (which that page attests) is that definitions always require a #. So the vote is superfluous. —CodeCa t 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no vote about changing WT:ELE because WT:ELE doesn't actually require a # in the wikitext, so long as the page renders correctly. If you can point me to a line in WT:ELE that says otherwise, please do so; I looked through that document and didn't see any such requirement. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information but do not have their own header. They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#). —CodeCa t 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this as requiring that the wikitext itself must include a #. The template provides the linebreaks and the #, and this then expands (and then renders) exactly as WT:ELE stipulates. The template does exactly what you quote: it provides the defs in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

But ELE says that there has to be a #, I don't see how you can interpret that any other way. After all, the # doesn't appear in the final entry, so what else could it mean but that it's in the wikitext? —CodeCa t 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, ELE doesn't say that there has to be a #. It says (bolding mine): "[definitions] are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#)." It doesn't say that the # has to be in the wikitext; to me, this reads as instructions for how to add a list of defs -- be it by a human editor, by a bot, or by a template. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Salut Mglovesfun (je me permet de te parler en français). Est ce que c'est normal que vous ayiez toutes les formes conjugaisons de faute d'orthographe ? J'ai vu ça avec le verbe débarasser (l'orthographe correcte est débarrasser). Ainsi on trouve débarasse, débarasses, débarassent, débarasseront, ... Tout ça a été fait par un bot qui a donc fait ça sans vérifier. Pamputt (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Idem pour râtisser. Pamputt (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's not normal to have all the conjugated forms for a misspelling. I would rather delete them. We could probably just ask User:SemperBlotto rather than use WT:RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In fact, there are several verbs which have wrong conjugated form. I found them with this page created by Dakdada on French Wiktionary (/!\ HUGE PAGE). So, I will contact User:SemperBlotto and explain him all that stuff. Pamputt (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Double rollback

Not sure what occurred here but it looks like you and Equinox were both simultaneously rollbacking and something subtle changed regarding IPAI? Etym (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My changed came after his but didn't cause an edit conflict. I undid instead of rolling back, and used the opportunity to review the IPA. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, just wasn't sure what happened there. Anyway I get what you mean about how it would be annoying to do that for words like 'brilliant', but that's in regard to describing attributes in people. Brilliance clearly must exist as an objective thing (a capacity to think about and solve problems or question, something like that) even if opinions differ about who is and isn't. But creepiness on the other hand, arguably doesn't, since rather than defining something that literally exists, we are defining something purely upon reactions to it.

I think we do this in some cases. Like for example ugly: "Displeasing to the eye/ear". Eye/ear being the things that make it subjective. Perhaps we should just say "displeasing"? I actually find it odd we use metaphorical expressions like this to define 'ugly' (it's after all the brain/person who interprets what the eye sees, 2 perfectly functioning eyes could have attached people who have differing opinions of beauty).

Similarly "offensive to one's sensibilities or morality" uses "one" as the subject of interpretation. So there seems to be precident for explaining/emphasizing the subjective basis on purely aesthetics-based terms that don't relate to actual existing qualities ( merely subject to subjective interpretation of intensity, rather than being purely based on it) like genius or strong or tall. Etym (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I think you should read the last two paragraphs you wrote again and then reply to them. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick! Seventeen minutes after I added the fact that "rung" is a nonstandard past temse of "ring", you reverted it! But I even gave a reference: AHD. That means the American Heritage Dictionary. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking, it is nonstandard because strong verbs are not derived from other words whereas this one is. No doubt analogy with other verbs is the cause. —CodeCa t 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. "Rung" is simply from the old preterite plural, whereas "rang" is from the old preterite singular. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But is it really? hringan was a weak verb in Old English, so that mean the strong past form can't be "old", it has to be an analogical formation. —CodeCa t 14:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It follows the general pattern of Class 3 strong verbs. It was strong already in Middle English. But all of that is immaterial to my complaint that Mglovesfun reverted my edit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I only reverted the ones with unacceptably bad formatting. Ideally I should've edited them, but it was two minutes before I needed to leave the house. I still need to fix your edits from earlier, unless someone else has done it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I notice that in 2010 you made a change in the article saugh ([2]) labeled as "format", but in fact you changed the verb that "saugh" is supposed to be the past tense of. I think it's a past tense of "seen", meaning "saw". Eric Kvaalen (talk)

Feel free to edit it. There is no see#Middle English so it can't be the past of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you please restore the deletion of vorbei-, there are verbs linking to it and it similar to other german prefixes like voraus-#German... Thanks, Jobnikon (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No I can't, having incoming links doesn't justify having a page with no language or definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, is it a prefix or is it an adverb? —CodeCa t 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it with language and definition. Do you translate prefixes? The meaning is "by", "past". I see many German prefixes just have "# A prefix."

It's a prefix, the adverb has no "-". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not really an answer, though. What makes this prefix distinct from the adverb? —CodeCa t 01:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Prefixes are attached to verbs. Usually they are classified as prefixes. Separable Prefixes (trennbare Vorsilben), see "vorbei-". Verbs with vorbei- (vorbeigehen, vorbeifahren) are considered single verbs, even if English counterparts, like "to go by" may be considered as "verb + adverb". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Our Dutch entries consider them verb + adverb compounds (see voorbijgaan), rather than verbs with a prefix. It seems rather inconsistent to treat German differently. —CodeCa t 02:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually do German entries but that's how we treated them at school and at uni, even including some real adverbs, which are now spelled separately with the new reform - radfahren, kennenlernen, spazierengehen. Don't know who would be the person to talk to. IMHO, treating the Dutch "voorbij-" as an adverb is just trying to match English grammar because it translates as "by", a separate word but that's IMHO :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. In Dutch (and presumably German too) there is no distinction between the compounded and separated form. "voorbij gaan" and "voorbijgaan" are one and the same thing, and they both have indistinguishable conjugated forms: "ik ga voorbij". The difference is only in writing, where putting in the space calls attention to the nonidiomatic sense of the adverb, if the compound might otherwise have idiomatic senses. —CodeCa t 02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The infinitive form "vorbeigehen" is always spelled together (also participle "vorbeigegangen" and form with "zu" - "vorbeizugehen"), with the new orthography as well. "Ich gehe vorbei" is written separately because it's separable. I haven't followed any recent docs or researches on the German grammar, I just treat those words that are written together in dictionaries as prefixes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Any German prefix with just # a prefix needs to be fixed; it would be like defining Tier as # a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'll let someone else fix others but I've fixed vorbei-. They should be mass RFV-ed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've mass-RFD-ed them instead. —CodeCa t 12:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your bot (and the others like it) from reverting my edits. See this revert. Yes, I had to move the German content to another page, but how can I do that if I have to battle bot after bot? Maky (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the German to Lemur. I didn't realize that German nouns begin with a capital letter. Either way, fighting the bot reverts of useful changes and this stupid reference warning are annoying. It makes me not want to edit on Wiktionary. Maky (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And why the hell does the edit page warn me that my edits are not constructive, saying: "A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: ref no references" I am using reference! Stupid software.... Maky (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a bot it's me and other editors reverting your terrible, thoughtless edits. We can assume good faith (that you're not a vandal your a good faith bad editor) but good faith only lasts so long; keep breaking entries and you'll get blocked. The same rules apply to everyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, dude. Do you even know how to welcome people to the project? If you haven't noticed, the help pages and templates on Wiktionary are about a decade behind those on Wikipedia, and I've been struggling to figure things out. First of all, I modified lemur because I thought that like Wikipedia, it corresponded to both lower and upper case instances. When I found I was wrong, I assumed the upper case version was strictly for the taxonomic name, so I moved the German definition over. I also moved my first "bad" edits (where I put the taxonomic information on "lemur" instead of "Lemur") to the page they were supposed to be on. I then moved the German edits back when I realized my other error. So yes, bad edits... but I'm a beginner here. Lighten up. I'm at least trying. And just because the information was misplaced and "bad" doesn't mean the information was. If my edits were poorly structured, then correct, don't revert. Also drop me a friendly greeting and point me to some help pages... like we do on Wikipedia. Maky (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a dictionary. The entries reflect the way words are spelled. In taxonomy, the taxon Lemur is spelled with a capital letter, but the English word is spelled lowercase. —CodeCa t 21:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that now. My bad. But do the 2nd and 3rd noun entries on "lemur" (which I created) belong on "lemur" or "Lemur"? Now, after what I've learned, I would guess the latter. Maky (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nouns can never be translingual because different languages inflect nouns differently. To say that another way: if it has a plural, it's always going to be language-specific. —CodeCa t 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who comes straight in with a hostile attitude isn't going to get a warm welcome from me. In other words, be nice to people and they'll usually be nice to you. Try it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was being hostile towards the Wiki software, which was flagging my edits as disruptive because it couldn't distinguish "References" from "references". Then there was what appeared to be bot reverts. Nowhere above was I making personal attacks against you. Maky (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, let's start over. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you take out 'borrowed'? Ƿidsiþ 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure; is it borrowed or inherited? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely borrowed. The inherited term is gaine. Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/vagin says borrowed, but why as vagin and not vagine? First attestation is as vagina, then vagin all the way since then. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Capital?

Quick question about your recent edit on swḏ‎ - are definitions supposed to have initial capitals?

to bequeath
To bequeath

Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:ELE says they may have a capital letter and full stop (so also they may not). The 'house style' is to use capital letters and full stops for English definitions, and neither for non-English definitions. That includes definitions for Scots and Middle English. Nonetheless, the format is consistently inconsistent. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for the message that you did not like. It was not my intention and I hope you do me no like. Sincerely,

--Automatik (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My message was to ArséniureDeGallium (that's not you as well, is it?). I corrected the message but must've had an edit conflict and I didn't notice. So sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not me. So okey, it is better to know it :)

Regards, Automatik (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Jill

Hi. I apologise for the inappropriate revert (which I admittedly realised was in haste), but I do wish to inquire about the nature of the process. I have glanced on the talk page and found that the same entry was previously requested for verification, but it did not seem conclusive. Is such an entry really appropriate for this dictionary? Thanks for any and all clarifications you can provide. AnnicAllus (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Equinox#Jill. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. So because it wasn't caught in time it should be allowed to remain? I'm sceptical as to how many readers would view that particular page within 30 days' time. Even User:Equinox himself couldn't find any citations for such a usage. AnnicAllus (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me. What is the point you're making? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought this had been orphaned? There are still many entries that use it, like public, but they show broken code instead. —CodeCa t 03:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well {{etyl:xno}} exists but isn't being called anymore; so this a problem with the etyl template. Codes like {{etyl|LL.}} and {{etyl|VL.}} should be having the same problems. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of askance

Can you check diff? It added "t" to the pronunciation of "askance", which seems optionally supported by MWO and unsupported by some other OneLook dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can hear a -t- in the audio file, could just put it in brackets. I've seen it written on some pages that /æns/ and /ænts/ are almost indistinguishable from each other. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mglovesfun, Today I find abundant durably-archived attestations for mentulomania using Google Books. For example "(1918) The Urologic and Cutaneous Review - Volume 22, Issue 3 - Page 147", "(1898) An Illustrated Dictionary of Medicine, Biology and Allied Sciences - Page 746", "(1919) The American journal of surgery - Volume 33 - Page 193". Please undelete the page for this legitimate medical term. Keith Cascio (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you going to me? I'm not the deleting admin. Anyway, I can't see the second two citations, what are they? The first one is a bit mention-y too "The term masturbation rather than manustupration, metulomania, clitoromania, etc., seems to be preferred by the majority of authors". So so far that's zero valid citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I derped, and misinterpreted "diffs" :/ I thought the newest revision on the page was the one where it was just an empty wikilink on the def line. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 12:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to make of this. On one hand, it's wrong to use {{term}} without a language. But on the other hand, what you replaced it with doesn't really seem like that much of an improvement. Do we not know the language that it was actually borrowed from? It seems to me that Cantonese or Min Nan are the most likely candidates. —CodeCa t 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna bring this up on your talk page. Some of the uses of term with sc and no language are in fact correct, such as this one would have been using {{term|日本|sc=Hani}}. It seems to me to be ok to signal when term doesn't have a lang, but some such cases may actually be correct, linking to the whole of an entry instead of one specific section of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All terms have a language, otherwise how can they be terms? I think that the problem in this case isn't that the term has no language, but rather that the formulation of the etymology isn't specific enough. What it really intends to say is that the term originates from an undetermined Sinitic language. That all of those languages happen to write it the same isn't terribly relevant... would we say "from Germanic bord" or "from Slavic bog"? No, we'd either specify which language was intended, or list several possible cognates for comparison. I think that should be done here too. —CodeCa t 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is I suppose a valid point. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you check the quotation you added to resultar in your book again? The following: " […] a arquitetuira, somadas a rica história […] " should probably be "a arquitetura, somadas à rica história". — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday, April 26, 2013

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: User talk:Mglovesfun

Latest revision as of 01:40, 27 April 2013

Contents

[edit] Re:Redirecting CJKV character entries

[edit] AWB request

[edit] Gratefulness

[edit] flooding RCs

[edit] New user

[edit] About user Fête

[edit] The recent changes to my contribs

[edit] Wanafucawi

[edit] new vids

[edit] More AWB

[edit] Some missing French verbs

[edit] French linking templates

[edit] European Portuguese forms

[edit] Parallel form

[edit] Why the hell are you deleting my userpage?

[edit] Internet slang acronyms as interjections?

[edit] Language-specific linking templates

[edit] Serbo-Croatian is not a real language

[edit] There's no Chechen Swadesh list on Wiktionary!

[edit] "Do you actually read the nominations before you comment? And no I'm not being sarcastic"

[edit] a correction

[edit] Category:Czech words suffixed with -ství

[edit] tripent

[edit] Geo-contextual

[edit] re Feed the Beast

[edit] Our coverage of Portuguese sucks

[edit] monde (French adjective)

[edit] Wiktionary:Votes/2013-02/Typographic vs ASCII punctuation

[edit] The recent changes to my contribs

[edit] "VL." isn't a language code.

[edit] Language sections

[edit] Han-Nom 𪜚

[edit] Middle French pentacle

[edit] Double rollback

[edit] Initial Capital?

[edit] Re:Jill

[edit] Pronunciation of askance