User talk:BD2412/Archive 1

Status: Active. Archives: 1 (10/05 - 08/06); 2 (07/06 - 02/07); 3 (02/07 - 6/28/07); 4 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 5 (1/08 - 8/08); 6 (9/08 - 12/09); 7 (12/09-12/11); 8 (1/12-4/16)

Archive of User talk:BD2412 from October 2005 through August 2006.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• Criteria for inclusion
• FAQ
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Your entry has been wikified and moved to greatest thing since sliced bread. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary format is different to that on Wikipedia - please study the Welcome links. SemperBlotto 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have tended your seedling so that it doesn't look out of place amongst all the other plants in the garden. I cut back the shoot that was trailing into the garden next door. SemperBlotto 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

face... Hey :-) (extreme boredom has forced me to leave this irrelavant comment!) Cheers. 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to forget the headword from time to time:

===Noun===
'''headword'''
# Def.

— Vildricianus 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some peculiarities seem to reappear time and again in questions – this is one of them. It's partly a relic from the time before case-sensivity, but is still retained because that's the line where inflected forms, gender etc. will appear. Cheers. — Vildricianus 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you are into things legal - could you look at this entry please? Thanks. SemperBlotto 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see another legal chap. perhaps we should collaborate on things legal. Please look at oyez which I did, but I am not American and the usage note is from common knowlege. Also can you do an entry for oyer. I requested it some time ago, but felt that it needed someone with American and English jurisprudence to do the word. Also, relative to civil action what do Americans call an action between the state and a private individual? e.g. a private citizen has a collision with a state vehicle, and then sues? Finally, (before I bore you to tears), look at negotiorum gestio which SB has asked for a clean up on. I cant think of a more elegant way of doing it. Regards Andrew massyn 20:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC).Reply

i.e. your def for civil action is misleading. A civil action is an action that is neither criminal or adjectival? Not so? Either that or you must amplify your def to let people know how the State is treated. Best wishes Andrew massyn 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC).Reply

Hi. I see you've been working to create our first index to anything in Shakespeare. I'm glad to see someone making that bold effort. I'm currently untertaking to do a Concordance to Henry V, and have been struggling with editorial issues. To whit, I have placed some editorial notes on the Project page regarding the manner in which the list seems to have been edited and created. Again, thanks for getting the ball rolling in this arena. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, but someone else imported the list - I just broke it into smaller pages (still unorganized). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Replied. — Vildricianus 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. bd2412 T 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments in my Talk today and your direction to helpful resources for a new Wiktionarian. Jahos 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I gave my reasons for speedy deletion on the word's discussion page. The Spanish definition is fabricated and outright wrong. I don't know anyone who can verify the Icelandic, but I know that the person who created the entry has been wrong more than 50% of the time when he has created Latin or Spanish entries. I wouldn't expect his record to be any different with Icelandic. --EncycloPetey 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is up with the flood? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I generally don't welcome contributors that don't have any contributions, as that needlessly increases the DB size (and so many thousands of "user" accounts are created never to be used again.) I'm certain many of them, unfortunately, are genuine potential users. But for each genuine potential user, there are a hundred vandal users created.

If you are only welcoming "current" newly added users, I guess my comment is "knock yourself out!" But perhaps you should do so with a 'bot account, if the volume continues at its current rate? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It might work on Wikipedia, but eventually, Wiktionary will have many more users, so... :-) — Vildricianus 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the last time I checked w:Special:Statistics, they had more "users" than articles. Aparently someone devised a programatic way around the CAPTCHA images. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... Wikipedia users have made 52,000,000+ edits... but half of those are probably vandalism and reversion of same. bd2412 T 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello BDA. "See also" is on a level 3 here (only language names on 2). Cheers! — Vildricianus 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I'll check my contributions to see where else I've done that. bd2412 T 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great work on the timezones. Were you planning on doing them all?  :-) Perhaps we could have a special template for listing the abbreviations all on one line (or a one line wikitable) by UTC offset? Do you think {{timezones}} would be useful? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Quite so - we can steal Wikipedia's and modify it accordingly... though I believe the one there is only for UTC time zones. bd2412 T 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

...and here it is:

Hmmm. It looks like it misses the daylight savings timezones though. Some of them are a little tricky, like Arizona Time. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

China operates under two calendars, the traditional and the Chinese calendar. I take it you would want all of them? bd2412 T 01:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC) --Yes. It might be worth creating an Appendix similar to the one for Months of the Islamic Year. --EncycloPetey 09:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. There is already Category:zh:Months, in congruence with all others in Category:Months. Cheers! —Vildricianus 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Now that I had a closer look, that's perhaps exactly what you intended -- to have two different ones? As China has different months of course. But then I think articles in the category should be English entries... —Vildricianus 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your second look is correct - I am modelling this after the reporting of Arabic vs. Islamic months - there is one category for Category:ar:Months (e.g. Arabic names for months in the Gregorian calendar) and separate Category:Islamic months for the months of the Islamic calendar. When you say the articles should be English entries do you mean pinyin or translations? bd2412 T 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, okay. I don't know a thing about Chinese, so I'm probably completely wrong. But in Appendix:Months of the Chinese Year, there are English names for them, so they look like the likely candidates to be in that category, while the Chinese names would be in Category:zh:Chinese months. Does that make any sense? Forgive me if it doesn't! —Vildricianus 17:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The English names originally to be found in the appendix are what I copied from Wikipedia, but I can not find non-wiki support that these are actually in use. The fruit-or-flower month names (which are used) are not what the Chinese call their months (or what the months translate to), but appear to be a way of denoting them to non-Chinese only. I'll dig deeper on it, tho. Thanks. bd2412 T 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Final remark - after consulting with my father in law, it turns out that the fruit and flower names are archaic, now used only by peasant farmers in the hinterlands, as it were. The modern Chinese simply say the equivalent of "month one", "month six", "month eight", etc., e.g. modern usage is the sum of its parts. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thanks for creating the Appendix to the Chinese months of the year! It's so nice to see this information finally showing up on Wiktionary. Second, could you help fill in the Chinese information on Appendix:Units of time? If you know of people who could help fill in more Asian languages, that would be great! --EncycloPetey 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will work on it - Cheers! bd2412 T 13:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think you're thinking of "ça va?" French only uses cedillas to soften c when it would otherwise have a hard sound, e.g. before an a. Cheers! Rodasmith 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did not add #3

I see, but you re-added it, although it's a title and not a definition. bd2412 T 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am sorry about that. I am also sorry for my brother vandalizing your page. I have made an account to prevent confusion. Johnjohnston 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe the newest version comes with it, just click "select language and project" in the "file" menu. You just need to be approved for it on pedia, as there isn't yet a seperate thing. It works the same way as on pedia, though "general fixes" are a bit messed up right now, IIRC. Ask That Guy, From That Show! (the AWB dev who adapted it to wikt) or go to #autowikibrowser for more info, since I don't really know much. --Rory096 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! bd2412 T 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

comments merged into my talk page --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The normal word for God in Greek is "theos" (θεος), I don't think I've ever heard "theismos". Theism (in English, at least) is of course derived from theos, and refers to all beliefs which believe in the existence of gods which are actively involved in the world (not to be confused with deism, as you probably knew). I could be wrong... are you sure of that "theismos"? Paul Willocx 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are correct - θεος is God, θεϊσμός is the equivalent of putting an -ism at the end of it. I'll correct my entries (this evening - I'm off to a party now). bd2412 T 19:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the word is rather used as slang in egypt, but, where did the french coq come from? I saw this in a documentary I just thought it would be a "helpful" addition.

But I don't see the sources for the other words?

• Technically, every word should be sourced, but the meanings of most words are so well known as to not arouse suspicion. The kuk/cock connection is rather shady, especially since coq is French for rooster. bd2412 T 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you spot any more such rushing attacks, perhaps a note on an active admin's talk page is faster. WT:VIP is a good idea, but perhaps in such a small community like en:wikt, I doubt which is the fastest. Good night! —Vildricianus 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip - I'll go straight to the source next time. bd2412 T 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I've had an account on Wiktionary for a while now, but thanks. Denelson83 04:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

:-) bd2412 T 13:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

See for instance the Mars article, specifically this section. The Portuguese and the Romanian words are both "Marte", but the former is blue (just like here), while the latter is red. How come? -- Jokes Free4Me 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Маrte and Marte are from two different character sets. Observe the same words in a Wide Latin font:

Маrte and Marte

Freaky, ain't it? bd2412 T 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Damn, so it's entirely my fault... :-( When adding that link, I copied from the russian "Mapc", without thinking that it's a different charset; and changed "pc" to "rte"... Should've wrote all from scratch, or at least changed the whole thing... (which i'm going to do in a few hours or days unless i hear otherwise.) -- Jokes Free4Me 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No biggie - at least it got caught quickly! bd2412 T 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it'd be best to do the same here as at Wikipedia. It's quite easy to link this user to the WP admin. Perhaps you will become admin here as well. Cross-project vandals are a new trend (or have they always been so?) — Vildricianus 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• An increasing trend, I think - very rare in the past. bd2412 T 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is apparently a well known brand of pencil. I said I would do etymologies, and see it is a registered brand name. Perhaps in your other capacity you could find out when it was registered and put the date on the article? Andrew massyn 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Registration #0,514,179; claimed date of first use: 1900; date of filing for registration: March 26, 1948; registration granted: August 23, 1949; status: live. bd2412 T 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
• P.S., that'll be $650. bd2412 T 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is there some reason to subst inflection templates? I have always been told that we do not do so in English Wiktionary. If templates are subst'ed, it will be considerably more difficult to convert to the new inflection templates. (BTW, this is regarding this edit.) Rod (A. Smith) 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought the general rule was that templates should be subst'ed to save server strain - I'll gladly undo it if I was in error! bd2412 T 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, that's more Wikipedia practice. The majority of templates here is not subst'ed; exceptions are the welcome things and such. — Vildricianus 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As my father says, you learn something new every day! bd2412 T 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, according to w:Wikipedia:Changing username, it is still possible to usurp an existing account so long as no edits have been made from it. bd2412 T 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct, but then developer intervention is needed, right? And AFAIK, no WP bureaucrat endorses it. — Vildricianus 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, usually it is considered in light of one person wanting a username absently registered by another, but here there is no question that the person who has registered the name would support its usurpation. bd2412 T 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

... but your solution on Paul's page is better! bd2412 T 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

But is it technically possible for a bureaucrat to rename to existing accounts? — Vildricianus 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that this is possible iff the existing account has never made any edits. bd2412 T 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

versus free on board ? — Vildricianus 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Good point. Redirected. bd2412 T 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

... but level two headers are only for languages! :-) — Vildricianus 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

...um, typo. bd2412 T 22:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although I've been on Wiktionary for quite a while now, thanks anyway! -- Denelson83 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you confirm that User:Brian0918/Hotlist doesn't infringe any copyrights? — Vildricianus 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

At first blush I'm not to worried about it (esp. if we knock out all the blue links), but I'll have to look at it later - right now, know how busy I am? I'm sofa king busy! bd2412 T 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Being busy is good - tempts me to keep on bugging you :-). The idea is, though, to keep the blue links, especially. We're/I'm considering populating Index:English with this list. — Vildricianus 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi BD; let me remind you, we only do interwikis for the same spelling on other wiktionaries, not for translations. — Vildricianus 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Remind me? How can you remind me of something I never knew in the first place? bd2412 T 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah; I didn't realize it was completely different from how WP does it. So yes, we only do interwikis for the same spelling on other wiktionaries. See work. This is all automatically done by bot. Translations go in the translation section, of course. — Vildricianus 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Per edit summary... bd2412 T 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll look into your suggestion to do a concordance of the wikipedia. The problem is that the wikipedia is BIG (a whole lot of data, downloading it and unzipping it take space and processign it takes a lot of processing). The other problem is that the wikipedia contains a lot of proper nouns. I'll keep thinking about it. RJFJR 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is the year of the translation you used? It's necessary to complete the quotation. Thanks --Rklawton 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. bd2412 T 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made the template to allow me to see how many Wonderfool sockpuppets there are. Geo.plrd 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Understandable reason, but please don't feed the troll! You can raise your concerns on the RfD page. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please have all those edits marked MINOR? Pretty please? Sugar on top? --Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Much obliged, thank you! --Connel MacKenzie 06:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Before you do too much work on these you should be aware of something. I did some work figuring out how to clean them up, and stopped for the same reason.

All 17,791 of the Han character entries were made by User:Nanshu with NanshuBot. The source was (primarily) the Unihan Database, which is proprietary copyright material owned by Unicode, Inc. No, he did not have permission.

I haven't brought this up in (e.g.) Beer Parlour because it would probably generate more heat than light. The Wikimedia Foundation and their corporate counsel are looking into this; I suggested to them that they see if they can come to an arrangement with Unicode. This may be very difficult, since even using it with their permission, anyone could then use the data from here freely. (And it is most of the Unihan database! not to mention 10% of the en.wikt)

There is a real possibility that one day soon the 17,791 entries might have to be stripped out of the DB all at once. Along with derived entries not from other sources. (A lot of things like bǎng particularily Japanese On and Kun readings in hiragana seem to have been generated from the NanshuBot entries.)

I know, ouch! Robert Ullmann 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

By odd coincidence, I happen to be an intellectual property attorney - I would have to see the original work (including the layout and information provided in this database of which you speak), but it should have no bearing on the presence of 1,380 or so articles on the Pinyin notations, as those could be derived from any source. Writing a dictionary does not grant the author ownership of the words therein; the author only owns such matters that require creative thought, such as the arrangement of information and the text of definitions. We can escape any hint of impropriety by establishing our own arrangement, adding our own unique features, and putting definitions in our own words. In other words, rather than bot-stripping the entries, we need to bot-rework the entries. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The database is found at http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html if you are interested. (I'm sure you are ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is some language in the "terms of use" that raises my eyebrow... bd2412 T 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I had a similar (but less informed ;-) reaction. General counsel is Brad Patrick, contact on the Wikipedia team is Wayne Saewyc. Robert Ullmann 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would appear that we both have our fingers in a number of pies! -PullUpYourSocks 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use {{en-plural}}. It was supposed to have been deleted a long, long time ago. See User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-05#Templates. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

(sigh) No one tells me these things - I'll fix 'em all up to the old plural template, then. How hard can it possibly be? bd2412 T 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can run python replace.py -ref:template:en-prespart "{{en-prespart" "{{subst:en-prespart" if you'ld like. --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I can AWB it when I get home... there are not that many. My mess, I'll clean it up. There are templates on Wikipedia that will not let you use them unless you subst them, perhaps we should set these up likewise. bd2412 T 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't want to see people getting in the habit of subst:ing templates. The would add fuel to the flamewar currently in progress on WT:BP. (That, despite the fact that inflection templates are never to be subst:'ed, certain people may misconstrue the ability with intent.) It is better if we say that the rule of thumb on en.wikt: is to not ever subst: templates. There are five exceptions that I know of (the three welcome templates, and two others that soon may not have to be subst'ed either.) When you are done AWBing these, we can find the "Do not use this deprecated template" message from wherever it is hiding. --Connel MacKenzie 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps just redirect to {{deprecated}}.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can't say I agree with that - subst'ing a template like the en-prespart template I just knocked out is a timesaver... it's a tool, and like all tools, properly used it does good. I will disclose that I intend to use Template:Pinyin-n until all 1,370 or so pinyin-number definitions are done and then subst it in precisely because I worry that someone will propose a change, or two or three, and it will be much easier to tweak the look in the template first! bd2412 T 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you read the three-part flamewar about User:TheCheatBot, and the decision to have it regex change BACK all subst:'d templates to just the plain template. And that was *after* the 6th or 7th bot approval phase! --Connel MacKenzie 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like what you are doing with AWB. But en.wiktionary hasn't discussed AWB use in general, yet. Rather than me raising the topic, could you present your experiences with the tool on WT:BP, while asking if we should adopt Wikipedia's policy of blanket-blocking uses of it (if not previously approved as a bot task) or some modified version of that policy?

I think because you are a trusted user, your flagrant use of it has not raised any red flags. But I'd like to see it sanctioned as a viable tool (almost equal in speed to pywikipediabot, and very, very similar in functionality) before someone comes along and suggests you should have a three to twelve week approval process before each particular use of it.

Thanks in advance, --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Just for reference, pywikipediabot has by default, a preview of changes before saving each edit as well (turned off for category renames, interwikis and maybe one other function.) So, they do seem to be more similar than I thought at first. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the same vein, I hadn't realized that AWB had a 'bot' mode. bd2412 T 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to create pages for inflected forms of Latin words, then please include full grammatical details. The word argumenti is the singular genitive form of argumentum. Note that the nominative plural is argumenta. --EncycloPetey 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That’s fine too: good editing comes from good feedback; I did not express my feelings. I answered your question.. My language is from my heart. About meaning, verses ego, not a challenge a fact. Please don’t invite me into your conversations if diversity offends you.Kisida 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi BD. I don't see how the new sense of pavement is any different from senses 1 or 2 (which should probably be merged anyway). The citation clearly fits 2 perfectly. And the word can't mean ‘pieces of material’, or the quote you added would not have needed to say ‘chunks of...’. Widsith 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hmmm... I think in one sense, the pavement means the road itself, while in the other it means the material that the road is made of. You can, for example, have a wheelbarrow full of unset pavement, which you pour on the road to let harden. But I see your point about the 'chunk of'. bd2412 T 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Looking at Dictionary.com for comparison, every source it offers splits the def between the surface and the material. bd2412 T 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK then, maybe I'm going mad. Actually it looks all right now you've reworked it. Widsith 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply