User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-10

If you are here at the top of the page, you are lost. Go here instead.

Hi. I appreciate your vigilance that resulted in your accusation of plagiarism on my talk page. I realized that perhaps you aren't aware of the following:

• I'd cite sources if I knew how, and your message wasn't enlightening. I haven't seen seen examples on any other entry here. Would you mind pointing me to one?
• The web page you cited for comparison is not the original source, and is almost a word-for-word copy of the original. See my talk page for the complete quote from original source.
• The original source is not copyrighted; it's from a government publication issued to all new Navy civilian engineers, called Nomenclature of Ships by Charles Snelling, from 1981 (pre-dating the web).
• I tried my best to paraphrase it, and have just re-worded it again.

-Anachronist 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since I noticed this ... There is a Nomenclature of Naval Vessels, by Charles Piozet (1942 etc.), that's the Navy publication. If there is a book or publication called "Nomenclature of Ships" the Library of Congress hasn't heard of it. Robert Ullmann 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nomenclature of Ships is a government document. Most government documents are not recorded in the Library of Congress (as a former government employee, I can tell you they could never catch up with the documents generated by the government every day). It's not a book, more of a booklet with the pages bound by staples. The Naval Sea Systems Command issued it to me when I started working for them in 1994. I left in 2001, but I still find it a valuable reference. Perhaps it's derived from Nomenclature of Naval Vessels but I haven't seen that book myself. -Anachronist 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this subject was discussed on BP, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/October-December_05#Japanese links and redirects, and resolved. I think the only reason it was discussed was that "other people" had been removing the links. It doesn't seem like something that would need to be discussed; it is pretty much taken for granted in a wiki that we link to anything that is relevent and present (or likely to be).

The "other people" was one user, 219.173.119.57 (aka Gliorzio), who had delinked the rōmaji in the templates created by Gmcfoley.

In spite of the fact that is was concluded decisively that the rōmaji should be linked he continued to do this off and on, ignoring repeated requests to stop, until now. I noticed when he edited the new ja-noun template to unlink it again, but it didn't occur to me to go look at the histories or even read the rest of his talk page until a few days ago, when something I had just edited with AWB (updating template ja-kanjitab) was re-edited, and I looked at the change out of curiousity. Robert Ullmann 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Connel, your Check User flag is now active.
Please subscribe to checkuser-l and email [email protected] so that the listadmins know that you are allowed on the mailing list. (The list may contain confidential information).
Thank you. --12.3.196.1 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC) m:User:Paginazero not loggedReply

Hello! Just wondering what your reason for removing the (kick) boxing image from the hook article was. I thought it did a decent job of representing the "in-motion" derivations. There was no comment regarding the removal in the history. --Jeffqyzt 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was playing with the layout and didn't find a nice way of including both images. You are right, that probably is an important image for that page. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel, could you explain why you move things like sister boxes and images that are right after the language header? It is the one place that will consistantly format nicely as well as being structurally correct; they have to be inside the section for the language they belong to; they don't apply to other languages on the page. (Note that anything parsing the page has nothing to tell what language it/they belong to if they are at the top!) You don't like it for some reason i'm trying to understand? (and when it leads to deleting an image that is valuable, and was formatting fine ...?)

I wonder if maybe you have user preferences set up differently? (and you might try it with TOC (hide), as well as with the standard preferences set not to display TOC at all; both those look just fine if the graphics are after the language header, otherwise they display over the header lines.) Very curious. Robert Ullmann 17:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, we don't have strict rules on image placement, as we haven't found rules that work consistently. My preferences are set as close to a default, logged-out user as possible. I cannot remember if I have ever tried viewing them with the TOC hidden. I shall try to remember to do so. The last discussion I recall about image placement, recommended that they be counter-positioned to the TOC, which is why I always do that, as a first choice. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as images vs. structure, I thought we always ignored that, whenever placement worked "better."

Actually, things may calm down enough soon, so that we can discuss it in the grease pit at length. What I've been doing is simply what I think works best for placement. But if there is a better way, as you suggest, then I need to learn that method. I do think that WT:GP is the best place for that discussion. --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes (re WT:GP), I was just curious what you were thinking. Thank you! Robert Ullmann 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to know about this: Meta:Babel#Cross-wiki_ban.3F and an attempt to deal with Primetime where he's probably forgotten his sockpupeting existance. 68.39.174.238 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC) PS. I'll add the 'T entries from Wkt to the eN LTA page after I post this... 68.39.174.238 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why, but 'popups' didn't inform me there was a newer version when I rolled it back. I've restored your version now. Too bad I can't rely on that convenience. I do wonder if I've had any others like this. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries, popups confuse me at the best of times. Widsith 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm a bit confused as to the transwikiing you did. The wikipedia transwiki log shows that you transwikied 100+ articles already, but the Move to Wiktionary tags are still on the articles. And the message you left me at w:User_talk:Xyzzyplugh#More_transwiki says that the bot isn't approved yet and that you aren't sure if you should run it or not. Did you transwiki these by hand? If you used the bot, why didn't it take the Move to Wiktionary tags off the articles? One way or the other, I will be going through the transwiki log and cleaning up those articles listed within the next week or so, so I can take the Move to Wiktionary tags off myself, but your bot should be doing this as part of the transwiki processs in the future, since I may not always be here to remove the tags. --Xyzzyplugh 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had that portion of my script (the part that calls pywikipediabot's replace.py) commented out, as I was still testing it. The import has been done. Shall I run the Wikipedia side of it now? (That was my original question, poorly worded.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep, since the articles have been copied to wiktionary, and notations made on the wikipedia transwiki log, you might as well finish it and remove the Move to Wiktionary type tags. --Xyzzyplugh 01:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Please let me know of any I missed. --Connel MacKenzie 05:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Connel. I'm Ed Poor from Wikipedia. I used to be a bcrat and admin there. Anyway, thanks for deleted the page I marked. --Ed Poor 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice to have one's work appreciated. I try to do some work on Danish translations now and then. I especially hate Danish ttbc's! Arne 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Those 'impossibilities' were not so impossible after all. I took them from an older version of Wikipedia's article. Urban Dictionary gives quite a few results for 'wigga', 'wegro', 'Afro-Saxon', and even one for 'Wafrican-American'. BTW, the latter amused me most of all them. In addition, 'Afro-Saxon' seems to have currency in the more decent places, although with different meaning: "In both his books and newspaper columns, Lloyd Best has used the phrase "Afro-Saxon" to describe the Afro-Trinidadian (and, more broadly, Afro-Caribbean) elite."  :-) Dart evader 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Perhaps. The ones with less than three print citations are not worth mentioning, however. On inflammatory entries, the harshest possible criteria is used.

What prompted my "impossibilities" comment was the 'wiger' impossibility. There is simply no way you could construct that with one "g" and not realize it was in error, and would not be understood. --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also of note: Urban Dictionary is recognized as an invalid secondary source; that is, the majority of the contents there are simply invalid.

As far as Lloyd Best's citations, they are in direct conflict with the "independent sources" requirement. That is to say, all of those inventions can be traced back to that one author's nonce(s). So citations from him, don't count. --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone has managed to construct even that particular 'impossibility': wigers. :-) Dart evader 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

:-)   --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel. Does Rfc have an archive page? I want to start cleaning out rfc, but when I looked, there didn't appear to be an archive page. If not, then shall I make one and start doing the necessary? Regards Andrew massyn 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC).Reply

No, it doesn't have an archive page. When an entry is cleaned up, the RFC entry can either be removed or moved to that page's talk page. I think the best approach would be to announce the backlog on WT:BP. I think I'll take a peek at WT:RFC just now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You accused an anonymous user of having vandalized this page with the force of a block. However the senses you then removed had existed for quite some time. DAVilla 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct. The entry was getting a bunch of bogus errors for today, so I blocked, then reviewed the rolled back entry and saw additional nonsense that had been missed previously. --Connel MacKenzie 23:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The issue of that contributor aside, I'm sure you were correct to make the deletions as the sense is unlisted in AHD. It's a bit of a stretch to call such a closely related meaning "vandalism" IMO, but I understand how easily such pages are vandalized, how closely they must be monitored, and how strict the interpretations have to be. DAVilla 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The entry is poop - intentionally incorrect modifications to it aren't "vandalism"? Perhaps Scs was right, about my overuse of the word "vandalism," but really, what would you have called it? How would you have abbreviated it? "rvv" is a convenient, applicable catch-all, no? --Connel MacKenzie 23:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I modeled infinitesimal analysis on infinitesimal calculus. Based on your edit, these could use a once-over:

• complex analysis
• differential calculus
• dimensional analysis
• infinitesimal calculus
• integral calculus
• lambda calculus
• predicate calculus

--Jtir 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

FYI: this is commercial spam for a B movie. the 'pedia also tossed the entry practically on sight. (* so we don't ad hits) Robert Ullmann 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It has appeared here with different capitalization, so I guess some blocks are in order. --Connel MacKenzie 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me mister, but why did you block the entire university for nearly a month? There are over 25,000 people here (undergrads, grads, faculty, and all.) so that could irritate innocent users. Also, if you block any IP in the future, whether it's individual IPs or ranges, can you please allow those who use the affected IPs to edit when logged in? Thanks. --129.130.38.141 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because I did not have any way of limiting the block to the library subnets. And I wasn't about to guess at the net ranges. The English Wiktionary sustained a considerable attack all originating from one single University...apparently from library computers. Since all of the vandalism came from existing accounts (of which there are hundreds or thousands of sleeper accounts created for,) it was ineffective to block only IPs. --Connel MacKenzie 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed some very odd-looking "translations" which seem to have been introduced here. The translation into "flathead" was the one which caught my eye. I have looked at those blue-linked items I could pick out and none seem to be even vaguely correct. Some of the blue-linked "languages" also seem to be bogus. Is there a regular procedure for fixing stuff like this? I see that you have already had a run-in or two with this user…is it worth checking their contributions for further "interesting" additions? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's a short list on Template talk:COW that I'll draw from tomorrow, unless you want the first go. DAVilla 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not desire to steal your first-post. That list looks like a fine start. I don't think the "subject" model worked too well. I think the alphabetic variance approach to selecting words from Richardb's list is better in the long run (that'll get the project through about one year, at which point it can be expanded to some other list of ~1,000 if very popular, or closed as "done" if not.) I'll try and stay on top of the TOW's for a while.

If this gets going well, we can ask TheDaveRoss or Werdna or someone to bot-remove the {{BE-*}} templates in a month or so...the feeder list will be all that is needed at that point.

a        j        s
 b        k        t
  c        l        u
   d        m        v
    e        n        w
     f        o        x
      g        p        y
       h        q        z
        i        r

--Connel MacKenzie 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you prefer 1234, Author... to 1234: Author... (as in your edits to ha'p'orth), it might be best to start by changing the format proposed in Wiktionary:Quotations. Personally, I'm not fussed, and will follow whichever is accepted. The present format is as tweaked by Vildricianus in June 06 without adverse comment. I remember Hippietrail suggesting some other variation (to do with sub-pages I think, but I forget), but otherwise I haven't seen any interest in quotation formatting recently.

Yes, I should. The format was changed to a colon against the talk page discussion, without consensus. I change it to the alternate comma format to prevent further software confusion between improperly formatted translation sections (which my JS autocorrects.) It has never bothered me enough to mess with ELE and the incorrect changes there; whenever I think on the problem I'm left undecided as to enhancing my JS to restrict those autocorrections to the translation section, or to fix ELE to conform to the preexisting convention.

If you do tweak it, you might also like to add to the end of the first line (or deprecate or ignore) "...Publisher , page no," as used in apeth) -- Widsith persuaded me a few days ago -- I was going to use it a few more times before proposing it, but in reality I am already convinced. --Enginear 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't clearly understand this last issue. Could you restate that, or perhaps just be bold, yourself? --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Will do -- I suspect that anyone likely to object watches this page anyway, and they haven't immediately jumped! --Enginear 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

FYI: I added Transwiki:List of English prefixes to Wiktionary:Transwiki log. --Hroðulf 11:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel, I just added a definition for precognition (I saw that I had created "preignition" ages ago and was struck by the urgent need to add precognition!). However, I'm afraid I don't understand how the "plural precognitions" block is being added. I'm not sure I agree there is a plural term for precognitions, or if there is, it might simply be precognitions without the terminal s. What do you think? Thanks, Avriette 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mandarin Chinese ... how did you decide so quickly that this was POV? Note there wasn't any vandalism, he/she added the RFD tag, but didn't blank anything. There were at least two valid reasons to do so (sum-of-parts, and a bit encyclopedic). Mind you I've seen a nmber of people pushing PRC or whatever POV. But what was it that made this wrong? Robert Ullmann 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. It is User:Primetime, on an WT:OP.
2. It is not encyclopedic, not by any strech of the imagination.
3. Is cannot possibly be considered sum of parts; even if it could, that is not a valid reason for targetting a specific ethnicity.

Cheers. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah IC. I was wondering if you knew who it was. (the reasons were something someone could possibly think, not valid). Robert Ullmann 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have been thinking about our previous discussions on how we can make them work with all of the bulk that can possibly go into one of these, and was inspired by the translation section idea. Here is a mock-up of what I am thinking:

I am not sure whether the idea comes across, but basically allow the pronunciation section to be collapsed and opened based on the desired pronunciation. Have pronunciation sections which don't exist be black, and ones that do exist blue (and expandable) and templatize the pronunciation section in such a way that it is trivial to add ({{pron-top|US}} starts the US section, etc)

Anyhow, I have nowhere near the js skills to put these into practice or make a decent effort at one, but that is the idea, what do you think? - TheDaveRoss 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you've now pointed out the major shortcoming of the "translations" proposals - that is, in the process of making it cleaner for the default skin, they make it significantly worse for all other skins. Much more thought is needed on this type of approach. There needs to be something that works for all skins, too. --Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, let me think this through. You want pseudo-tabs for the "dialect" being described, right? Something like the sub-tabs of Special:Preferences? I wonder if I can reuse the JS code of the preferences stuff, in main.js, to allow this to work for all skins? --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That does sound like what I want, yes. - DaveRoss 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I'm very new to Wiktionary, so I'm always in search of pointers. I'd noticed that you'd changed the header of γνώμη to "Greek" (from "Classical Greek") and also that you made the Romanization of the Greek characters a link and no longer explained it as such. My questions are:

1. Is there a standard way on Wiktionary to differentiate between Modern Greek and its ancient forms? Furthermore, to denote the dialect of ancient forms? (I'm not sure of your familiarity with the language, so I apolgize for being pedantic: dialects of Ancient Greek often represent the same word in very different forms. I use the header "Classical Greek" to denote that the word in question follows the forms of the Attic dialect of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.)
2. Should the Romanized forms really be a link? My Romanizations are merely orthographical, and rarely if ever represent, for example, a Latin word.

Thank you for your help. Medellia 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, no I am not familiar with Greek (Ancient nor modern) per se. Probably all five or six edits to those Greek entries were likely in error. The standard Wiktionary language headings follow ISO-639 - so the valid heading can be either "Greek" or "Ancient Greek" (both of which we have hundreds of entries for.)

I did not check our language guidelines for Greek (if we have any specific instructions) regarding the romanization. Some languages wikify them and enter them as lookup aides, other languages have specific reasons for prohibiting them (which I don't exactly understand...even nonstandard pronunciation guides can be a useful way of finding the term one is looking for.)

If you could clean up those five entries for me, I'd appreciate it. When it comes to Greek, we don't have any regular contributors that I can ask, on borderline cases like that.

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 00:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

On that note, would it be appropriate to make some mention (either in the discussion or on the page itself) of the dialect? I will certainly clean up those entries when I get a chance (off to a midterm; as you can imagine I'd much rather be editing Wiktionary pages!), along with the other ones I've so labeled. Thank you once again. Medellia 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand correctly what you mean by "dialect" - of Ancient Greek? Thanks for cleaning these up. --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, what are you trying to do? Robert Ullmann 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Make {{cattag}} work, which it has not done correctly for several months now. --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which is to say, it is 100% unacceptable for the redlinked category to not appear. --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel, it tests for the existence of the category. I can't fix horticulture if you revert it in the middle. The correct syntax for a label template is {{cattag/equate|{{{subst}}}|''name''}}.

If you don't want cattag to test for the existence of the category, it has to be fixed inside cattag/category, eh? And then you solidly and definitively break the function of using tags that do not have categories. Robert Ullmann 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the quick revert.

"Solidly and difinitively break the function"? No, it is broken right now. People devising a new category cannot easily find the proper category name to enter - which is exactly why the redlink is always supposed to appear.

The experiment of hiding the redlink categories was supposed to somehow combine the features of italbrac and cattag. But that never evolved; no workable syntax ever presented itself. And cattag remains broken, even now.

--Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand how the "experiment" didn't work? cattag now does exactly what a combination of italbrac and (some previous) cattag would do: it generates italbrac rendering, putting the entry into each parameter that is in fact a category. How is broken? Template:cattag ...

If you don't want it to test, I don't understand why you were mucking about with "horticulture" instead of simply removing the #ifexist call from cattag/category ? But if you do that, you are going to generate redlink catagory references that were never intended ... Robert Ullmann 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Who says they were never intended? The legacy use of the {{cattag}} template was to redlink brand new categories, so they can be entered! There is no syntax we have, other than {{italbrac}} for indicating that the redlink is unwanted.

Topical categories should exist. Many, many, many more will eventually be created, right?

The {{cattag/equate}} thing remains incomprehensible. When a new template is set up for a topic, it should 80% of the time create a category with it (with 20% being redirects and whatnot.)

When a new qualifier for a definition line is entered, there is supposed to be a category for that topic, unless italbrac is used. But that is the only time the category creation step is supposed to be skipped.

If the link remains red? So what? Perhaps the contributor was lazy. But we don't have any prohibition on red links. Red links remain the principal way we encourage newcomers to make their first entry. Red links are Good Things (tm).

--Connel MacKenzie 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks for the questions you left for episode 2. Just a quick clarification, though: is the "WZ:" acronym short for WikiZine, or am I totally confused? :) Daveydweeb 07:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoops. No, WiktionaryZ:. --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just became a wiktionarian but I have been a wikipedian for a while now and I just wanted to know if you can become an admin or something like that here on wiktionary. If you know or have any questions relating the topic could you contact me on my page.

Kind Regards John Harrison Highns 07:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Our admins are listed here. There is absolutely no automatic crossover between projects. Consistently good constributors here for three months are generally nominated for becoming admins (when the winds are favorable.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Sometimes I accidently hit the wrong button or the computer doesn't register a letter and leaves it out.

Kind Regards John Harrison Highns 08:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you're thinking we shouldn't add 3ps present, etc, etc to verb phrases, even though we call them Verbs, then I now agree. I came across a multi-word one the other day where it would have been ridiculous. (I hope I stopped myself doing it, but can't quite remember.) People can always look up the verb the phrase is based on. If I spot an appropriate ELE page, I'll add a note.

For multi-word entries, do you think the individual words should be wikified in the Etymology, or in the bold entry below the PoS (whatever we call it), or both? I tend to think that both is reasonable (as you have now done), since they are both places where someone is likely to want to look them up, but I held off before due to an old warning (probably from WP) not normally to wikify words more than once. --Enginear 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A long while back, Eclecticology insisted that multi-word forms should list inflections only on the component word pages. That isn't always appropriate, but 99% of the time is.

Multi-word entries usually don't have etymology sections. But when they do, yes, the component terms need to be wikified in both places. (The more pressing 'rule' is that all component terms on the inflection line need to be wikified.) Do remember that we are not Wikipedia.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Perhaps the rule never made it out of BP (or I never read the relevant page). Inflection line -- I knew I'd seen it named somewhere! BTW, if you can very easily tell where this IP claims to be, I'd be interested to know (it's my work computer at a branch office in London, but we suspect it may go via another office). --Enginear 18:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://www.hashemian.com/whoami/ --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, as we suspected. It goes via our parent company's head office. --Enginear 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel. Would you mind importing all the name lists I just added to w:Category:Word_lists_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary, so that I can format them for Wiktionary? Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit 10:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've done Special:Import on these:

• Invasion biology terminology
• List of Dutch given names
• List of French given names
• List of Frisian Given Names
• List of Hungarian given names
• List of Irish given names
• List of Italian given names
• List of Kurdish given names
• List of Latvian given names
• List of Lithuanian given names
• List of Modern Greek given names
• List of Persian given names
• List of Portuguese given names
• List of Roman praenomina
• List of Romanian given names
• List of Spanish given names
• List of Swedish given names
• List of Zazaki given names
• List of Zulu first names
• List of the most common Russian names

Please indicate (here) which Wiktionary pages you want me (or any sysop) to merge them into, by 1) deleting the destination page 2) Moving the transwiki page there 3) restoring all history, 4) reverting to the last known "good" Wiktionary version, 5) verifying the (unprotected) status so you can edit them.

Also, please clear that Wikipedia category before someone over there has an anurism.  :-)

--Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. As far as I can tell, there's no overlap at all, so these will just be cleaned up and linked, and moved into the Appendix namespace as new pages for the time being. No admins needed for that. Tell me if you have a better idea. Hopefully they'll all be done in a week, (and meanwhile, I'll nominate each one for deletion from Wikipedia as I convert them). Dmcdevit 05:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems strange for someone to thank another for a rejection, but I managed to turn it into a successful request for CheckUser on Wikipedia against Primetime. See w:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime under the Primetime3 header. Jesse Viviano 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As much as I complain about the lack of inter-project communication, I really ought to do a better job of it myself.  :-) Thank you for filling the the various gaps! --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was really lucky in noticing many coincidences to make a strong CheckUser case. I had the IP address whose unblock request was rejected, an earlier IP check request filed by 68.39.174.238 (Wikipedia talk page), the time Primetime's IP address had been blocked, and the talk page of that address, which stated that CheckUser showed it as being used abusively, and therefore had been blocked. I was able to put all of those together to show that this was not a fishing expedition. If someone just gives an IP address and does not give a good case with solid evidence why CheckUser is needed and why an account is likely a sock of a banned user, such checks usually get tossed out as fishing expeditions. Given the IP address only, I would have only been able to file a report on w:Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and Primetime would just go proxying around again with unblocked socks. Jesse Viviano 08:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must've fallen through the slats of the tea room :) so I decided to ask you, whose name I always see as Colonel MacKenzie.

Here's a wikipedia link to the current version of misnomer: . I'm thinking the top 6 bullets are valuable info to understanding the word's meaning, but I'm not sure if they'd qualify to be transferred here. They are meanings of a word, which is why it might. But I'm not sure if they go beyond Wiktionary's purview.

There's an informal discussion on whether to keep the article at w:Talk:Misnomer#Dictionary-Type Article/Possible Delete, and I mentioned I'd ask here. The basic dicdef was already transwikied here a year ago. TransUtopian 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your chosen username appears as a redlink, here, which triggers my instinct to dismiss your WT:TR question as a newbie question that someone else will address.

Looking at the definition, I now see why it needs attention. But that particular entry is a little touchy for some, so I'll let the normal machinations of the tea room address it, in due time. Hopefully, my restatement of the problem is sufficient to draw the needed attention, to it. --Connel MacKenzie 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I admit I'm more in tune with WP than WT, and that I'm much of a browser of dictionaries than editor. I've found I most enjoy reverting vandalism and sourcing contested facts on WP.

I've redirected my user page to my talk page, to turn it blue. Thanks for correcting the title and more fully explaining my question. I'll try to remember that in future.

How do you know the definition is touchy for some? I don't see lots of discussion on talk:misnomer. TransUtopian 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Lots of discussion" is relative. I think on Paul G's talk page it may have been discussed. --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - sorry that it took me so long to respond. I was quite busy lately, my life is moving a bit fast. I have enabled notification for the main namespace. About your other requests, I'm not sure what to do:

• please prefix changes with a ==Date== or ===Date=== heading on wikt:WT:CT.

what do you mean by that? You get a new heading every day, and a horizontal line as a separator for every update... what do you want to have changed?

• Please change update mode to retain 60 days of activity only.

I can't do that - removing old entries in incremental mode is not (yet) supported. It may be in the next version, but I have no idea if and when i'll have time to implement it. I could switch to "replace mode", which would override any manual changes made to the page - but replace mode is more expensive, so it is limited to 10 days.

So, please tell me what to do on my talk page. I'll try to respond a little more quickly this time :) -- w:de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Connel MacKenzie. I noticed you added part of speech headers to diacritic variant pages such as imāgō. These aren't reliable, since the definition referred to can include any part of speech or other information. I think it'd be better to refer users, as they did previously, than to add unnecessary and unreliable sections. Any thoughts? — Pathoschild 11:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have thoughts on the matter. This is the English Wiktionary, where terms are described in the English language. Describing something as referring elsewhere is gotesquely inadequate. If they hold all parts of speech ("all?") then each of those parts of speech need to be listed on the respective pages. --Connel MacKenzie 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

They hold all information in common (not every part of speech in the language), since they are the same words with modern transliteration. I don't see what's grotesquely inadequate about a 'see:' note; it's common in dictionaries, and prevents redundancy and duplication of effort. It's neater to say "equivalent to blah", rather than "for etymology, see blah; for nouns, see blah; for verbs, see blah; for derived terms, see blah; for anything else, wait until we remember and update this page." Referral is common on Wiktionary as well, particularly in translations, and for the same reasons. — Pathoschild 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh - "prevents redundancy and duplication of effort" - irony! bd2412 T 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's good, but it is an apples to oranges comparison. Translation information is not duplicated because visiting editors find it difficult to navigate (since they usually don't speak English natively.) The opposite is true for the POS information: our target audince is the native English speaker (who is trying to learn another language.) Leaving a trail of redirects and pseudo-redirects is Not Good (tm). And not describing the part of speech is simply too lazy for words. --Connel MacKenzie 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

These pages are standard transliterations of real words, generally only used in reference texts and etymologies. They aren't part of any part of speech; they don't even exist in spoken form or in written source texts. They aren't actual words, similar to the way a pronunciation key isn't a word simply because it's used in reference texts and translation sections. There should be no trail of redirects, since they should all point to the single real word. Wiktionary:Transliteration seems to consider this possibility without any sense of outrage, albeit proposing the less commonly accepted redirects. That page is quite outdated, but it seems to be the only page that addresses the question.

Either way, there's a big mess with transliterations and romanisations which isn't going to get better unless there's a written guideline one way or another users can refer to. — Pathoschild 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

<substub> IRC discussion snippets to be pasted here tomorrow. Yes, concrete policy pages on the topic would help greatly. Especially since you and I have reached opposite conclusions, so far! --Connel MacKenzie 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Link: Robert Ullmann updated Robert Ullmann 13:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Connel MacKenzie I would just like to inform you that I recently created a Wiktionary account and I noticed that my user page had already been made by a user under the name of John Harrison Highns and it was filled with untrue information. I have still keept it as evidence on my user page, if you want more information have a look at the user page at User: Konstable. --Konstable 08:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Konstable is a suspected sock of John Harrison Highns, known WP vandal. The real Konstable is a WP sysop, I've asked him to confirm this. (Why can't we have common login, why oh why?) Robert Ullmann 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Robert, CheckUser requests are supposed to be on WT:CU. Anyway, yes, Wiktionary:User:John_Harrison_Highns is a sockpuppet of Wiktionary:User:Konstable. Single-User-Logon (SUL) is expected to be turned on soon. --Connel MacKenzie 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hardly needed CU ... I just pointed it out here because he added this to your talk page ... ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

With respect to your message

The word little functions as an adjective, (e.g., What a nice little girl.) but also as a determiner (e.g., she has little patience for this.). I was thus trying to make the distinction between these. Two of the examples that were given as adjectives were indeed adjectives, but the third was a determiner. Thus, I initially simply inserted a 3rd level determiner heading there. This, however, split some of the adjective information out from the relevant section. I hope this is clear.--BrettR 14:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Since when does Wikipedia use (determiner) as a POS?" I don't know. It was here when I arrived. I've just be trying to make things consistent. see w:determiner and w:Part of speech--BrettR 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I realise this is not Wikipedia. I merely referenced those as they clarify the difference between a determiner and an adjective.--BrettR 15:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for dealing with the trolls, I guess I should have parked an account here. But I am confused that he made some edits in September (which are , while I only met this specific troll on Wikipedia just a week or so ago! Did the transwiki somehow assign my Wikipedia edits to a non-existent Wiktionary account? I certainly don't remember creating a Wiktionary account or making any edits here.--130.216.191.183 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the new transwiki procedure imports the complete Wikipedia edit history of an entry. I think it looks pretty strange, too. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply