User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2006-11

Hi. Was there a reason you deleted my definition of dime? I thought slang definitions were welcomed on the pages. 66.27.228.190 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, slang terms are encouraged here, if they meet Wiktionary's criteria, same as formal terms.

What you entered is (as far as I can tell) a nonce. If I am wrong, then it should be easy to find print citations of that use of the word dime. When I look at http://books.google.com/ for 'dime' + 'slang' I am bombarded by 'dime-bag' references to a small quantity of marijuana.

Now, my removal of it out of hand, was to not waste anyone's time on requests for verification. I can restore it (and nominate it) if you like, or you can re-add it with print citations. Which would you prefer?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you check your inbox please? Jeff SemperBlotto 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recently got this on my talk page, and it apparrently as deleted by Robert Ullmann. Any idea what's going on? In particular, has JHH now got satisfaction? Please respond. Andrew massyn 17:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• John Harrison Highns

Hello Andrew Massyn 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 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is resolved, yes. --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A little more detail: JHH and Konstable (and several others) were vandal accounts. The real Wikipedia admin was notified, and when he (and others) created their accounts here, a bureaucrat renamed the various blocked accounts around to their satisfaction. --Connel MacKenzie 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good evening. I am trying to convert Appendix:Architectural glossary into a proper Wiktionary glossary. That page used the "ref label" template when it was in Wikipedia. As I continue working on the page, I am realizing that it may become unnecessary as I continue the conversion but in the meantime, could you suggest a better way to document the sourcing of content? The source in this case does not seem to be a quotation in the sense intended by the links you provided. I can continue to fumble around but if you have a quick suggestion, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Rossami 21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you deleted the copy which was moved in. Your deletion summary only said "incorrectly copied". I assume that's because the first person attempting it didn't correctly follow the new transwiki process. Did I get it closer to correct? Thanks. Rossami 06:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. I need a wikibreak.

Not only could I not find the original list that was copied (due to the same contributor deleting it all from Wikipedia,) but the confusion was exasperated by the entry already having had been transwikied under the old, broken transwiki method.

The entry should be imported from Wikipedia via Special:Import. Unfortunately, that is restricted to Wiktionary sysops. I have been automating as much of the process, as seems reasonable.

Further compounding the problems, the template on Wikipedia is named incorrectly, giving people the impression they should perhaps take matters into their own hands, as happened with this entry.

The transwiki realm currently is the number one backlog of Wiktionary. I remain inexplicably optimistic that it can be worked down. So far, it has been a matter of moving the bottleneck, from Wikipedia, over to Wiktionary's Transwiki: namespace...but at least with the bottleneck here, attention can be gradually drawn to it (as is happening.)

You seem to be quite busy with Appendix:Military slang at the moment. Do you want the history imported and merged in? --Connel MacKenzie 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't object to it if you really feel like going to that much trouble but given that there is no push to delete the history from the Wikipedia page that was left behind and given that the move seems reasonably well documented in Talk pages and edit summaries on both projects, I wouldn't bother. Anyone who really wants to dig into the history can find it pretty easily.

By the way, the instructions at m:Help:transwiki still describe and encourage the use of the manual process for anyone who is not a sysop on the target project. Since there are relatively few sysops on either project who tend to volunteer a lot of their time to cleaning up transwikis, I suspect that most will continue to be manual moves. I'd like to suggest an answer but don't know of one given the current state of the software. I guess we could open up the import to more than just the destination sysops but that has its own disadvantages. I'll try to think about that some more... Thanks. Rossami 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see where the wording was ambiguous on meta:, but I don't see it 'encouraging' that behavior anywhere. But thanks for the link - I've added a minor line there, which may help.

Until I have remaining kinks worked out, yes, it will remain partially manual. This is still the transition phase for the transwiki process. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm struggling with the addition. I worry that it will add to rather than reduce confusion. The paragraph still says 'If import is enabled and you have access to it, follow the Import process. Otherwise, follow the manual procedure.' (Excuse my paraphrasing.) Not being a Wiktionary sysop, I will not have access to the feature. That means I'm to follow the manual procedure regardless of the availability of the import function. Your addition implies that as long as import is enabled on the project, users should not follow the manual process whether they personally have access to it or not. The apparent contradiction within the paragraph is confusing. If we are going to insist on the automated process, I think the parenthetical comment has to go.

But if we do that, we may be setting unreasonable expectations. Since even the automated import still requires sysop intervention, there needs to be process-definition around how to get that sysop attention. Your addition says to request an automated transwiki run but doesn't give any clues where or who the user requests it from.

I also note that there are no suggestions about how long it typically takes for those requests to get filled. If I'm volunteering to clean up a page, I'd kind of like to get on with it. I'd really rather not wait an unknown period before the transwiki gets run. Yet at the same time, we're an all-volunteer force. If the import still has to be run by a sysop on the destination side, it's unfair to tie their hands to a possibly unreasonable service level agreement.

Re-reading this comment, I sound very negative. That is not my intention. I know that this is a new process and that the bugs are still being worked out. My only intent is to make sure that all the bugs are identified so they can be addressed. I do have a general concern that we're developing a cool tool but neglecting the people and process aspects of the change. Thanks for your support. Rossami 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

(since this is just about your lists ;-) It seems to me that you have a list of L3 headers that your s/w does not expect to be POS sections? (Etymology, Etymology #, Pronunciation at least). It would be good to treat Han character, Hanzi, Kanji, and Hanja as something similar; they may have definitions, but usually won't. Even putting the "common meanings" under the translingual section isn't going to help, there are many thousands that don't have it.

What predicate do you use to identify "Nanshu" entries?

It would be good if the (partly) cleaned up entries were not excluded, so we can catch the remaining problems. I think that will be the set of entries editied since Nanshu by people with "creative" ideas? Robert Ullmann 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, please remember that it is not "just about lists".  :-) I'm the most active of those who are affected, true. But it is a long term goal to have this stuff work in a generic manner.

My "Nanshu-ish" entries list, depends on context. For the /todo cleanup lists, the main exclusion criteria is if the entry contains the text "Wiktionary:Chinese". For the Morobashi/Morohashi cleanup, I generated a separate list just for them (which didn't include those entries that I had previously cleaned up manually or via JS.) I haven't put that list anywhere here, as I doubt it is useful. If I were to generate a list for you, what criteria would you want? Simply select by the code-range of the first character? Separate list for those which contain the text "Common meanings:"?

It makes the most sense to me, to start by trying to generate separate "Nanshu" /todo lists (/todo6, /todo7, /todo8...) since they can so easily get enormous. But that is moot, if separate lists would suffice for you.

--Connel MacKenzie 15:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting: I use the "what links here" to several pages starting with "Wiktionary:Chinese" especially because the ruleset transform takes that out. Suppose you change nothing, and see what happens? These will no longer be seen by your s/w as Nanshu things.

Note that there are a lot (maybe 70%? more?) that don't have "common meanings". There are quite a few that are Korean only; a number that have no information at all other than the simple things.

I don't need a list to feed the "bot". I am though very interested in what gets left out. What is still flagged in the entries? Is there anything else that can be fixed automagically?

Oh one more thing: is there some way you can make your list show the characters, instead of lots of %nn UTF-8? (I can't read that ;-) Robert Ullmann 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, that was why I was freaking out when I saw your initial changes: the results will all end up on cleanup lists. The main problem with what you've got now, for these lists is that for each "level two language heading" (i.e. ==Translingual==) there are checks for a "valid" POS heading, that contains at least one "#" definition line.

I'm not looking forward to changing all that around, to tolerate an extra 24,000 entries. I'd rather the majority of them actually come out like bona fida en.wiktionary.org entries...which would be really, really, really easy if you didn't include the "Common meanings" as a template item, but instead gave them each a "#" line. (What you want to call the heading, I could care less, at this point.)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's what I am doing, putting them on # lines. The problem is that a lot of the less-common characters have no definitions (or whatever we call them), and almost all of them have no POS headings or definitions for Chinese, Japanese, etc.

Would probably be best if you skipped that check if the pagename >= 一 (4E00)? (Better would be 㐀 (3400) through 龥 (9FA5)). The other checks we probably want? Robert Ullmann 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, no, I haven't found a consistent way to update the /todo pages with the non-url-safe encoding. I suppose I could (with the available 'bot gimicks) do so, but I haven't fully automated it yet. Good thing too, as the semi-manual updates of the lists give them much needed extra review, particularly as I don't have "overflow" methods hashed out perfectly yet. --Connel MacKenzie 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your comment on my talkpage: I am discussing this in email with User:SemperBlotto. I would be perfectly happy to take the discussion on-wiki, providing it is kept clueful. As it is, I am apparently unblocked and 'on probation' - my edits are being watched for malicious behaviour by (at the very least) SemperBlotto and another sysop. If you are not talking with SemperBlotto also about this, I would recommend you did, because he's the blocking admin and is clued-in to the whole situation. --Abednigo 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I hope you understand our caution in this matter, while it is being reviewed. As a user with CheckUser priviledge, most of what I'd say cannot be said "on-wiki" if disclosed at all. I expect the current review to take a couple more days. --Connel MacKenzie 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

link: User talk:VPliousnine#ru:User:LXbot. --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to use the other account, but then I have to patrol every single edit because it doesn't have a bot flag.

Sigh.

Let me ask you a technical question: note that this is very precise!

Do you flag language sections that have no valid POS header with definition(s).

-or-

Do you flag language sections with a valid POS header that has no definition(s)?

These are not the same thing!

What happens to a language section that has a POS header with a definition, but also has a POS or POS-like header without? Are you looking for at least one def per language section, or at least one per POS header? Robert Ullmann 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Those are not the same thing! "No valid heading" ends up on /todo2, or /todo3, no definitions end up on /todo4 or /todo5.

User:UllmannBot is white-listed in my 'patrol.js', so once every five minutes I mark them all as patrolled. Since they are all marked minor anyhow, the people that would skip checking them, already are skipping checking them.  :-) So don't let that stop you from using the correct account. --Connel MacKenzie 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

sawa, I've noted that when you're around people like Tohru, Cynewulf, Krun, etc get patrolled very rapidly. (Oh, If Cynewulf or Krun are not on your list, please add: they are very good at formatting/standardizing ja entries.) Will do. Robert Ullmann 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You and other sysops are VERY WELCOME to add people to the whitelist inside User:Connel MacKenzie/patrolled.js. Encouraged, even. I leave my browser "auto-patrolling" 24/7, so unless my connection is down, they should be getting patrolled even when I sleep. I'm pretty sure at least one other sysop also uses the "auto-patrol" mode, so even when I'm not around, they should be getting marked properly. --Connel MacKenzie 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you see other sysops mentioned in there, it is because they (at some point in time) didn't have their flag set in Special:Preferences and were generating unpatrolled edits. --Connel MacKenzie 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

okay, good, I took myself and A cai out of the list, and added Krun and UllmannBot. Do note that you(?) auto-patrolled Werdna on Oct 14 and another date in which he "semi-automatically" added word forms that are bad (canals) and need to be fixed! (and yes, I don't see this as any problem other than to-be-fixed, but I don't seem to be able to get his attention? ;-) Robert Ullmann 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. "Patrolled" means it is not obvious vandalism, not that it is a "perfect" entry, nor even a "correct" entry, for that matter...just not a vandal. Thank you for editing the list - please make a habit of doing so! --Connel MacKenzie 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suppose we break all of this out into the languages, are you comfortable with having rather large "definition needed" categories for Mandarin, Cantonese, (common), Korean and Vietnamese (at least). 5-15K in each? Robert Ullmann 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am very, very comfortable with this. But User:Eclecticology objects to all large categories (e.g. Category:English nouns) so you'd better have a vote or something regarding the topic, listed somewhere. E.g. WT:GP. Lastly, you'd better not rely on my individual personal opinion. (Not for anything, really.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay... we need (language) definitions needed for these; I still don't know from what you said above if a language section with one valid POS header (say Noun) with a def, and another (pseudo-POS) header Kanji (without a def) will get flagged. Do you (for your checks) need one valid def per language, or per "valid" POS header. (I would think the former!). (I don't think EC has a problem with systems/admin type cats, he is about the thing users use) Robert Ullmann 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think if you added a parameter (if not already there) to {{substub}} it would be good enough for filling those categories. My program checks for "at least one POS heading with at least one definition" right now. In the future, it is supposed to broaden out to any POS heading missing a "#" definition line, but not until the other cleanup lists are brought down to manageable sizes.

I cannot emphasize enough, that general technical discussions (especially those that result in gigantic cleanup categories) should not be restricted to my talk page. Perhaps beer parlour would be better, but as an absolute minimum, comments should be solicited on WT:GP. --Connel MacKenzie 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I understand completely. I'm asking here for your opinion. I do think we really must have a definition-needed cat for any language section without a def. And we now see a need for language sections like that. (aside: I do NOT like the word "stub", that is 'pedia. Any entry at all we have is not a "stub"!) I will play a bit, and bring it up on BP or whatever. Ideally, I can convert all these entries to ones that will pass your checks (except when they shouldn't, which is the point!) Robert Ullmann 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, yes, such a category (group of categories) would be very beneficial. --Connel MacKenzie 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where's your evidence for the "blatantly wrong" etymologies? What makes you think the etymology I found in the full OED is wrong? I'm replacing and enhancing it until you can show otherwise. — Hippietrail 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was "blatantly wrong" in that it had blank etymology section(s), at the wrong levels, had juxtaposed translation sections also at the wrong levels and was attributing a mainly American slang term to some unrelated obsolete British term. While the OED is good, they do make mistakes, especially for terms that are mainly American English. But then, that is my understanding of it...the OED certainly wasn't cited as a reference, in the entry I looked at. --Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK it needed things fixing but you fixed some things and broke other things and left a snarky comment. M-W also gave the same etym for the breast sense by the way. As a point of interest, I believe it was Arthur miller who first derived "booby" from "bubby" and later derived "boob" from "booby" if I'm correctly recalling the OED cites I saw maybe 18 months ago. It seems you have unwittingly demonstrated that having etymology headings even without the details is more correct and more useful than lumping everything together even if it is less complete and less useful than having both the headings and the etymologies. — Hippietrail 08:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the snarky comment. Thank you for demonstrating that blank etymology sections are much more harmful than you suggest. --Connel MacKenzie 08:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

(new section; everything on your talk page is archived, and we normally don't edit archives?)

I ran some new code through (most of) Category:Grade 2 kanji, can you tell me what you think of how it is turning out? Robert Ullmann 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm glad it is archived already.  :-) It is something I'm experimenting with - leaving the last month or two unprotected. BTW, I wish we left archives intact, but rarely is that the case, here. That said, I'm not particularly likely to notice an archive being edited.

I shall look now at that category. --Connel MacKenzie 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I seem to cause problems; my apologies! I had noticed that you edited δίφθογγον which prompted two questions:

1. Would it be inappropriate to add the translation in parentheses for every "form of" page? (I quite like that system)
2. Would it be possible for you to take another look at the page? I seem to have caused a box to appear where there oughtn't be one and am rather unable to remove it.

Thank you for your time. Medellia 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was able to discover how my "little box" came to appear and am in the process of rectifying that situation. Medellia 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we may have crossed wires. I removed the extra linebreak from the template as soon as I noticed it.

I thought English Wiktionary entries were supposed to describe terms in English. I could very well be wrong. I have not checked the foreign language criteria in a while (and it seems to vary tremendously, from language to language anyhow.) But my understanding was that the meaning of a term should be comprehensible to an English speaker. Arguably, the simpler form can be chased down for the same results. I honestly don't know if it has even been discussed before. I suppose I could ask TheDaveRoss, what he did for Spanish forms...or type ALT-X until I get one... --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suppose a "better" way, would be to add a "trans=" parameter to those templates. Hmmm. Maybe WT:GP has better ideas on the topic? --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Grease Pit it is, then! Again, thank you for your guidance. Medellia 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

(continued from User talk:VPliousnine#ru:User:LXbot)

Hi Connel,

I just wanted to add that before you simply start adding Russian nouns in alphabetic order, you might wish to consider copying the noun declension templates from ru: first, followed by adding the nouns by declension subcategories. That would save human editors a whole load of follow-up work.

Cheers, --Schwallex 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have no plans of adding Russian nouns anytime soon, but thank you. Those look like helpful templates that need to be adapted for us here. For now, English considerations keep me more occupied than I can keep up with. --Connel MacKenzie 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely no redirects for misspellings!

louvre is not a misspelling - it's just not the American spelling. Anyway, I'll make it a dab. --Singkong2005 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 06:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just rolled these back, as very suspicious looking (and a username containing "suck", therefore blocked.) But my Korean knowledge is non-existant. Still, this looked like really bad edits.

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E4%BA%BD&diff=prev&oldid=1750876

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E4%B8%B7&diff=1750879&oldid=1750657

Please review and correct as needed. TIA. --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

these are fine for content, although whether we want Kwukyel as yet another L3 header is another thing ;-) (And the wikipedia reference has to move.) "Dustsucker" is just slang for a vacuum cleaner ... Robert Ullmann 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

unblocked Dustsucker, it is probably after the album of the same name. (there are non-obscene uses of suck, and it isn't always pejorative, there was a vacuum in the UK called the Vax advertised with the slogan "VAX SUX!") This user has been around for a year, making Korean contributions, all good AFAIK. Robert Ullmann 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No slang, no album, just Staubsauger. German is my first language.

Sorry for bad style – it's difficult to find examples for how entries for Korean words or morphemes are supposed to look: When I tried 한, all I found was , without a word about 한 as a form of 하다. Dustsucker 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's what I found on Google: "Worn't (weren't with a back vowel)". (Alas, I cannot give a link, as it was on some subscription website). Frankly, I do not understand what that 'back vowel' means. Perhaps, it may imply that the contraction in question is not just a mere misspelling? Dart evader 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I should send this to WT:TR - it looks like it may be an obsolete spelling (perhaps Middle English?) --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can say that I've met it in Patrick O'Braian's "The Mauritius Command" (yes, yes, again):

"Hey, you, the lobster there," he called to an intervening soldier, "your dad worn't no glazier. We can't see through you."

If it were just a misspelling, why would O'Brian reproduce it in direct speech? Dart evader 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can say for certain, that I do not know. I've listed it in the Tea Room now, to hopefully get some assistance. --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, did you just accuse me of vandalism? Badagnani 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you seem to have done so again, which makes it a bit hard to have a normal conversation, but I'm happy to explain: the current template, which seems to have been imposed unilaterally, creates a horribly jumbled long line of pronunciations which is very difficult to read. In this case, the previous manner of listing pronunciations each on its own line is superior. There is always room for improvement here but having all the pronunciations together in this way is just not the best way to have things for our users to most easily get the information they are looking for. I hope, as with everything here, that there is room for such input without instant accusations of vandalism (!) Badagnani 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for your note; the problem is that the editor whom I believe probably created this template (and who has been quite active in East Asian languages as of late) has not always been very receptive of suggestions regarding the improvement of such templates. His responses have generally been dismissive, for what reason I can only guess, though I believe my suggestions to have been not unreasonable. Badagnani 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just made a recommendation at the "discussion" page of the Korean part of speech/romanization template. Hope a good, clearly readable and usable solution can be worked out. It always has with similar issues until now, as we have good people working here. Badagnani 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should be noted that these are romanizations not pronunciations in any case. I think the problem may be that the template allows 3; perhaps it should just display SK 2000 Revised, which is our established standard? (The other two are useful, but are not written forms of the language...) Robert Ullmann 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

See the latest: w:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. HQCentral also has a Commons account, where he uploads pictures he claims to have taken himself (ha!). Some of the other socks may have cross-Wikimedia accounts too. -Will Beback 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the welcome message you left on my talk page. Thanks. VoiceOfReasonWA 07:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

link: User_talk:EncycloPetey#Wiktionary:Word_of_the_day.2FArchive.2F2006.2FNovember --Connel MacKenzie 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm replying to your comments here -- sorry for the long delay. Please go ahead and delete my incorrect transwiki (Transwiki:lump it). I will delete the page nominate the page for deletion from Wikipedia since you transwiki'ed it with history at Transwiki:Lump it. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It has been zapped. (Oddly, the JS redirect didn't auto-redirect me to the upper-case Transwiki:Lump it entry, but the 'did-you-mean' does appear. Curious.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel,

You pointed out to me that documentation of templates belongs on the talk page. However, I moved the docs from {{nl-noun}} to its main page before you told me so. Could you please revert that? Is there a way I can do that myself, or should I get admin rights to do that? Cheers, henne 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is something going to happen with this, or am I asking the wrong place? Please point me somewhere else. then. henne 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoops. I'm evidently not very good at checking my too-rapidly archived talk page. Neither page is protected, from what I can see.

Normal users (and even anons!) can turn on "Wiktionary-flavor Lupin Popups" at WT:PREFS. With popups, when you hover over revision history items, it displays a "revert to this version" button.

Anons and normal users can revert to a given version by editing that revision then saving it (as the newest, current version) using no extras at all.

Sorry, I guess I don't understand the question. --Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

History has been restored. Do whatever it is you do and let me know when you've done it. Proto 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I tried a few moments after you posted this message, but encountered a particular server error, that the developers have not looked into yet. By the next regular cycle (which I probably should have waited for to begin with) I expect it will be at least partially fixed. So please don't delete it. --Connel MacKenzie 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Connel, for your welcome. I'll have a look at the how-to-do-stuff-at-Wiktionary-(as-opposed-to-Wikipedia) page(s) you linked my talk page up to. You mention the standard Wiktionary format ... how does this apply to appendices (the quick glace I've give that layout page found me no mention of these)? Also, I'm thinking of transwikiing a few glossaries into appendices from Wikipedia. You mention requesting a full history import if they are in w:CAT:MtW. If they are not, can you still request this? What if this glossary is 80% of the Wikipedia page, the other 20% being encyclopædic, & you want to keep the rest? I suppose in this case you don't request the history import ... unless, maybe, you want to merge this 20% with another article (the article from which it was split in the first place, for example). Basically, I want to see what can be done about this whole swelling mess that can be found at w:Australian English vocabulary & the various other articles it has spawned. Any suggestions? Jimp 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me say again, welcome. Yes, we could use some help with that activity (Au).

The Appendix format is still in an infant/freestyle stage, so using Wikipedia-style level two ==Headings== is probably the best way to go.

I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia-way to nominate pages is to add the template {{Move to Wiktionary}} to the page. This adds it to w:CAT:MtW which my bot then picks up and moves over. I run this about once a month, currently (more often as I get the last few remaining steps automated.) The current stumbling block is that the Special:Import page requires the sysop flag to run. I'd like to have a separate user class of trusted users that are allowed to use it, instead of only sysops. But if I get the remainaing steps fully automated and running daily on the toolserver, that may become a moot point.

Once the Wikipedia article is transwiki'ed to the Wiktionary Transwiki: namespace, you can then move it to the Appendix: namespace, edit out the encyclopedic stuff, clear/correct/remove templates, link back to the original Wikipedia article, etc.

Feel free to ask more specific questions, as you get mired in the details.  :-) Remember that you can give me a polite nudge if I'm neglecting the imports for too long. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, I'll get to work on those glossaries when I have the time ... or more accurately, when I don't really have the time but am procrastinating yet again at Wikipedia/tionary. Jimp 17:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated the following slang lists for transwikification.

• w:Australian English vocabulary
• w:Old, declining or expired Australian vocabulary
• w:Australian English terms for people
• w:Colloquial Australian English proper nouns
• w:Australian English terms for clothing
• w:Australian English terms for food and drink
• w:Australian rules football slang

Jimp 09:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What's wrong with Cassell's slang dictionary? I've noticed you made a couple of negative comments on it on your Wikipedia talk page, intimating that anyone who uses it is not editing in good faith. I did a search through Wiktionary for any guideline or policy that says you should not use it, but was unsuccessful. Can you please enlighten me as to what are the problems with Cassell? If you would be so kind as to answer on my Wikipedia talk page, I would be grateful. However, I will check here from time to time also, but I tend to prowl on WP primarily. Thank you. --SigPig 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

do leave me confused.

I ask questions that don't get answered;

in other cases, the answers are difficult to interpret:

< http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Main_Page&diff=1632716&oldid=1632390 >;

< http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie&diff=1358243&oldid=1358173 >;

< http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie&diff=1358173&oldid=1358163 >.

Now, I had thought that on some of your pages, there are recommendations to, where appropriate, link to wikipedia.

Yesterday, I've realized that you are deleting these links, w/o explanation.

What are the regs?

hopiakuta 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're talking about mitten then? I rolled back the nasty whitespace thing, with the intent of correcting it. Because of a slow wiki, 20+ tabs open, and ongoing vandalism, that one got lost in the shuffle.

Speaking of vandalism, the first character of usernames is always upper case. Your redirect makes your account look like a typical vandal's. Please move your user page and user talk page back to the correct upper case version as soon as possible. --Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

or in place of in or of

Unfortunately, I don't know how to correct it...but you seem to be online. Strangely, the main entry for the word is correct. — This unsigned comment was added by Enginear (talk • contribs).

Fixed. The WOTD box itself has a tiny link in the top right corner of the WOTD box. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I should be more observant! --Enginear 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please count me in, as one of those itching to delete it, if recreated. The high holy terror vandalism that ensued from this class of made up railway terms is not at all funny. --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

So are you saying that if a term was once pushed by a notorious vandal, that does, in fact, forever poison the term against inclusion here, even if the term turns out to be valid?

The term w:diamond crossover is not made-up, and I am certainly no vandal! —scs 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have no control over "forever." Since other blocks are still in effect (i.e. AOL) due to the attempts still being made at it, yes, for this year (and likely next) those terms should not be here. --Connel MacKenzie 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't revert people's additions, as you did at Appendix:List of protologisms by topic. How would you like it if people reverted your additions? 4.235.120.220 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a wiki. People rollback my edits a lot. Sometimes vandals, sometimes other sysops, sometimes other contributors, sometimes anons. Sometimes, it is an improvement (since, alas, I am capable of error.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel,

I cleaned up some of the translations to be checked at

Category:Translations to be checked (Interlingua)

and will come back to them as time permits. Have a good day -- Matt Rogers 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the welcome; I've made a handful of edits before, but am hoping to get more involved in the project now, since I did help design the new logo. Smurrayinchester 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so that's why your username was so familiar. Congratulations on the logo. It obviously isn't my favorite, but then, my favorites never even made it onto meta: in time for the votes.

Anyway, yes, welcome; I hope you find a couple hours each week to play around here. --Connel MacKenzie 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said I could pester you or another synop to copy my Wikipedia pages across. So here I am. All of the lists of Aussie slang got copied here - thanks for that - but w:Australian English vocabulary was skipped. I wonder why this is. Jimp 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to catch a developer in irc on #wikimedia-tech yet. There is a browser timeout happening with that gargantuous history copy. I still was going to try other things (like text browsers) to see if that helps, but I suspect it is an apache/squid timeout anyway. You can start moveing those others to the Appendix: namespace and doing any needed cleanup until then, right? --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your warm welcome, I've been glad you've presented to me one work that I really like. :-) --M7 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure! We do need more Italian translators. Please also remember to check out Wiktionary:Translations of the week and Wiktionary:Translation requests. --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry; but I wish you had just told me to back it out rather than annoying yourself trying to unwind it. I wouldn't do something I can't fix, and I wouldn't do something and then just log out until Monday or whatever. (Yes, we both know plenty of people who would.) I was around, running AWB and doing some other things, writing a note on either talk page would have gotten my attention rapidly.

(As to the history, you referred to some issue discussion that isn't there? (Somewhere else?) Wouldn't it be far better if the history was attached to the monthly pages? Having the edit history for the sections in (say) October '06 on a different page (the main Beer Parlour) is not very useful; in (say) 2 years the edit history for the sub-page would be useful, but the main page edits will be buried many, many thousands of edits back.)

Anyway, sorry. Robert Ullmann 04:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, a talk page message certainly would have been smarter. I think perhaps the only new comments on the sub-page were mine (which of course were merged back in when I deleted beer parlour, and moved the archive back up a level.)

Yes, the monthly edit history should also be archived. Currently, WT:BP edits go back to 2002. That has performance implications, as well. Unfortunately, I haven't thought of a good way to get those where they need to be, either.

Thoughts:

One way would be to delete WP:BP again, restore everything except the last 6 weeks of edits, move to WT:BP/temp, then restore WT:BP to the proper version, and month by month restore the /tmp stuff, moved to the appropriate archive. PROBLEM: how to click 10,000+ checkboxes.

Feature request via bugzilla (perhaps): show history of subpages (or select subpages) intermingled with regular history.

JS magic: have the WT:BP "" button add to the subpage-du-jour.

JS magic: have a completed edit from a subpage return to WT:BP.

Anyway, I do understand perfectly that it seemed like Scs was being bold...so why not use something that works elsewhere? I am sorry I was too quick rolling it back on you.

--Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah Connel? It is supposed to be Frisian adjectives.

All POS cats are (language-name) (POS)

Category:Japanese adjectives, Category:Dutch nouns, Category:Spanish verbs

(The code: cats are topics.)

And, this is also true for English: see Category:English parts of speech. Except, oddly enough, for Idioms, which was Category:English idioms as it should be, consistently with all the other POS and POS-like cats until very recently ....

Um? Robert Ullmann 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I got confused on Frisian because the English was not-so-recently broken. English is not included for the POS categories. At least, it never was supposed to be. Was there a coversation on the topic I missed, or forgot? --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about English specifically, there was a conversation about using the codes for topics and the language names for POS cats and subcats. I seem to recall it being on WT:GP. But every English POS category (and there are many, Category:English plurals ending in "-es", Category:English intransitive verbs etc, etc, etc) starts with English. Except Category:Idioms, which doesn't follow the (seemingly very well established?) convention for every other POS cat in every language, including English. Robert Ullmann 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have confused myself immensely. Idioms are a linguistic breakdown of the language. Topical categories are not prefixed with "English " on the English Wiktionary, but linguistic categories are, right?

Sheesh, how many times can I get it wrong in one day.  :-(

I'll move Category:Idioms back to Category:English idioms now. --Connel MacKenzie 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

These have been confused for a while, Paul G (I think) moved some back to English idioms a week or so ago; but both cats have existed and been in use for ~ 6 months? The WT:GP discussion I recalled is at Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2006/October#Moving POS categories into POS templates.

The other thing is that all of the (language) idioms cats ought to belong to Category:Idioms by language to follow the pattern (Category:Nouns by language), but this has never been sorted ... ;-) Robert Ullmann 20:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

On no! Not another flavor! --Connel MacKenzie 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not so bad, it just means cat English idioms ought to be in Idioms by language as well as Idioms ... I thought perhaps getting all the individual entries in Category:English idioms ought to be mentioned on WT:BP since this has been unsorted for months? Robert Ullmann 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you'd like. Actually, it would be nice to have the finite list of "POS categories" that are put in Category:-lang name- POS spelled out officially somewhere. Perhaps it would be better to start a WT:VOTE and mention it on WT:BP, since the consensus seems to be fairly stable? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

WT:POS does list the categories, and is a draft policy document. Robert Ullmann 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply