User talk:Cynewulf/2007

It was very nice of you to amend some Japanese entries I worked on here. Forgive me for being a complete novice at the language, I am slowly learning it! Thanks very much for your awesome work, you revolutionize wiktionary with your total awesomeness! =) — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

Thanks :) Everybody has to start somewhere. Cynewulf 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, not only are you helping with Japanese words but with computation theory words too! Thanks!! =) I owe you a nice cold drink for catching some of those automata fixes!!

Thank you for reformatting that spate of Japanese verbs I added, and for even adding some new senses.  :-) My main purpose with those verbs was to try and nudge the Japanese wiktionary in general to start including "reciprocals" so that if someone stumbles on, say, "to drop (something)", they will see a direct link to "to get dropped". Thank you a ton for your helpful work! Keep it up, everybody appreciates it!

Actually it is verbatim from Wikipedia. Either the site you found copied Wikipedia or vice versa. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't prove direction but they did have a big fat © at the bottom, so somebody was doing something wrong. (The delete template wouldn't display right with the = in the url) Cynewulf 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As one of the people who voiced an opinion in the discussion, I thought you'd like to know that a VOTE has been initiated regarding the name of our "AHD" pronunciation system. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know -- currently pondering. Cynewulf 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ages ago, ELE claimed that dates should be linked, as in WP, and I did all those cites before anyone told me it was wrong, after which we corrected ELE.

Thanks for clearing them up, and apologies I never did it myself. --Enginear 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your great help with the new Japanese entries I created (I don't know the language but come to it from a Chinese language background), and even more for the repair of the template, re-adding the Chinese radical links that were deleted a few months ago (and shouldn't have been). You're lucky that you understand the templates so you can fix them. All other comments I've made to the editor who made all those changes in the Han characters templates (some of the changes were good, some were bad) were simply disregarded by him, and I think he would probably also have disregarded a comment stating that the radical links should be restored. So I say "bravo" to you. Badagnani 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are going to move the radical indexes to where they belong (Index:Chinese radical ...); and I have been chasing down the links to the pages. It was left out of the template for a reason (which user Badagnani doesn't give a dam about of course) so that Special-Whatlinks here will show what we still have to clean up. So don't be surprised if I revert this template yet again, to allow the page moves and clean up of the redirects. At the start of the process there were 140,000 links to "Wiktionary:Chinese...", we had it down to about 300. You've now put it back to 20,000+. See the problem? :-) And yes, these are going to end up linked, properly. If user Badagnani had asked why they weren't linked, instead of going around breaking things and making demands, he would get a better response, and I would have more time to actually fix things.

And no, I don't have any problem with you changing the template, except that it causes/caused a 20,000+ job queue run, when I change it again (to link the radicals properly), we will get another long job queue run.

Would you look at User:Robert Ullmann/Chinese indexes which is the current pass at what the page moves will be? Robert Ullmann 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the formatting tip! I'm going to refer to that in the future. It looks like a model definition. --Ed Poor 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you're helping out lots with Transwikis (dunno if you've done 100) but anyway, would you be interested in being an admin here on en.wiktionary? I've seen you make a lot of helpful contributions, and I think you'd find the ability to delete bogus transwikis yourself a great time-saver. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Transwiki:Replenished was number 87 (I don't like "list of things I've done" pages -- feels like bragging). OK -- If you want to give me a mop, I'll see what I can clean with it. Cynewulf 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, in theory, about "brag" pages. Please indicate your acceptance at WT:VOTE! --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As of now, you are now officially a Wiktionary administrator. Congratulations! Contact one of the other admins if you need any help in your new role. — Paul G 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to figure out this word, and I've found three different translations from three different sources. Think you can check if the wiktionary definition for it is accurate? Thank you :-)

Did you add the quotation for this?

Utterly fabulous awesome incredible book! Robert Ullmann 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes.. I read it in English first, now diving in on the Japanese version. Hopefully I can provide some more interesting quotations than analyses of go games. Cynewulf 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you edited the javascript, and just wanted to say,

Please make a habit of adding users you see that are clearly helpful contributors. I do not have the time to maintain that list, at all. If you devise a scheme of purging off old anon IPs, that would also be appreciated (maybe maintain that list on the talk page or something?) --Connel MacKenzie 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was my edit reverted? Atropos 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I admit that the definition from Merriam-Webster might not have been rewritten enough, but I was unable to think of an alternate way to write it. I hardly think a translation table is even possible to be copyrighted. Am I not allowed to cite dictionaries? Atropos 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you care to explain the reversion on "ja-readings"? I adjusted the template so that it properly reflects the fact that kan'on, to'on, etc. are a subset of on-yomi. User Robert Ullmann objected that lots of #ifs are a bad idea (without giving rationale), and posited a 'missing case' which was correctly handled in the orginal code.137.131.236.80 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the first I've heard of any reason for what you were doing. Feel free to explain what you want to do on the template's talk page so we can try to reach some sort of consensus. Cynewulf 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks for fixing any damage I did to glomp when removing the German entry. I don't know how this happened. --Zeitlupe 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I see you changed そびれる from "auxiliary verb" to "verb". I'm not too familiar with how things are classified in grammar, but I was under the impression that a verb like そびれる which is only used with another verb would be an auxiliary verb. Or is this term not used about Japanese verbs? How should it then be explained - perhaps in a usage notes section? -- Coffee2theorems 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is supposed to be just a specific wordlist of 1000. Someone (IP-anon) added lots of things, which I reverted again. Don't know if it was you. If we/you want a general basic vocabulary/index, it should be somewhere else? Robert Ullmann 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I don't forget to login. I'm no Checkuser, but it seems this is someone completely new. I guess it shouldn't hurt to make Appendix:Japanese basic vocabulary or such. Cynewulf 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for undoing my (evidently unsuccessful) attempt at re-organising the javascript. I've tried again; if you would, please refresh your browser cache and let me know if it's worked this time or not. (It seems to work for me.) — Beobach972 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just created the entry 雨降って地固まる, where I didn't do much wikilinking and didn't even translate the quotation. I think I will be making more such entries in the future, because what and how exactly should be wikilinked is still a bit in the air (the conjugation stuff, "納得のいかない" etc.) and as I'm not used to translating anything I'm very slow at it and it's tiring. Do you happen to know how to mark such pages so that they can easily be found later? Something like "This page is missing Japanese->English translations, if you're a fansubber please mistranslate it" (except maybe a bit more serious :-). I could at least tag it with Template:wikify, though it'd be nice to know which words in general should be linked (link everything so that all characters are part of a link?). -- Coffee2theorems 15:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can use {{ja-attention}} for now, or maybe make something that works like {{gloss}} -- call it rftrans-quote maybe. I've got a few quotes-missing-translations too, e.g. 見始 Cynewulf 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Use ja-attention. Note you can add text to it that is ignored, except by people: {{ja-attention|needs translation and better wikilinking}} Robert Ullmann 16:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I used the ja-attention template. -- Coffee2theorems 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why have you announced that gee up and otaku are rfv failed, in spite of the number of Google book search hits they get? RobbieG 08:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

After two months of sitting on RFV, nobody had bothered to place any citations in the entries. If there are citations for these terms, you could try adding them to the entries, instead of making idle talk on RFV. Cynewulf 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't know how to define those words since you deleted the existing entries, as I'm not an expert on either phrase. If you'd actually read that "idle talk", however, you'd see that both terms got a hefty number of gbs hits, gee up in particular having been used by Charles Dickens himself. Given that, I'm afraid I don't see how I was any more at fault for not copying out the citations (I've been quite busy of late) than you were for deleting the terms without adding them yourself. Anyway, I'd be happy to re-add them with the appropriate citations when I get time. Please can you tell me what the entries actually said? Is it possible to view deleted content? RobbieG 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the top of RFV:

How does one verify a sense?

• Cite, on the article page, the word's usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
• Cite, on the article page, the word's usage in a refereed academic journal.
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

  See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.

• Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.

None of these is "describe how many hits you get on bgc". They are all <blink>cite on the article page</blink>. There were no citations in the article, so it was not verified after TWO MONTHS. Letting these things rot for ages and only after some poor sod comes along to clean up the mess do you take interest in them... And you don't even know the words? Why do you care anyway -- you're coming off as some sort of troll. If you find our RFV process too effective at weeding out dross you might enjoy more contributing to urbandictionary instead.

"gee up" is a misspelling of "giddy up" and w:otaku is a Japanese word. Cynewulf 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, surely there's no need for name-calling. I'm very busy at the moment, but since you asked, I will make that entry for "gee up" (which is not a misspelling, and I am familiar with the word, just not confident with the Wiki-formatting) when I next get an opportunity to do so. As for "otaku", it's the fact that it's Japanese that makes it difficult for me, since I don't speak that language. I'm just concerned because I know for a fact these are real words and I feel that, as a dictionary, we should list them. RobbieG 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there,

I just wanted to say thank you for your work at RFV; we're now almost up to a month ago. :-D

—Ruakh_TALK 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your pronunciation wasn't wrong, it just didn't distinguish between UK and US preferences. All I did was sort them and add the geography tags. I was cleaning up old WOTD entries anyway, and that's one that had never gotten an audio file. --EncycloPetey 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm a Japanese native and a newcomer. Could you please tell me why did you revert my wrong definition deleting of 遊覧船? Oda Mari 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Pleasure boat" is a reasonable translation of 遊覧船 (though yacht is stretching it a bit). Cynewulf 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. Because I think the word pleasure boat includes rowing boats for hire, but they are not 遊覧船. 遊覧船 means only for sight-seeing boats like the Maid of Mist at Niagara falls or Beataux Mouches on Seine in Paris.Oda Mari 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re: "I think the word pleasure boat includes rowing boats for hire": I really don't think so. One could maybe jokingly, ironically describe a rowboat as a "pleasure boat", but the joke wouldn't be understood by anyone who didn't actually see the boat. —Ruakh_TALK 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I may be wrong. Would you please define the word pleasure boat for me? What it is and what it isn't.Oda Mari 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not a term I usually hear or use, so I'm not one to give a precise definition, but this might help:

• 1877 August, William L. Alden, "The Flying Proa", in Harper's Magazine, Harper's Magazine Co., page 428,

  Usually, however, the term sail-boat is restricted to an open pleasure-boat, carrying a single sail, and rigged after the fashion called, for some inscrutable reason, the cat rig. When a pleasure boat is large enough to have a cabin, or carries a jib and mainsail, she is usually honored with the name of yacht, and is thus promoted above the rank of sail-boat.

Make of that what you will. (By the way, what you're describing I'd translate as "tour boat" rather than as "pleasure boat", but that's just me.)

—Ruakh_TALK 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the editing 遊覧船. And please forgive my misunderstanding. Oda Mari 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit I still cannot grasp the definition. I thought the word pleasure boat means all kind of recreational boats, including private boats and rowboats or pedal boats at lakes and parks. That's why I deleted the word pleasure boat. Sorry for my poor understanding of English. But as for Japanese, you can depend on me. And I think the word tour boat sounds very good. Thank you.Oda Mari 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've added "tour boat" and a short usage note to the entry -- feel free to expand it further. As for "pleasure boat", see . (Cynewulf some time ago, forgot to sign)

Isn't it a Japanese English? I knew they use the word, it's even in a dictionary. The other two entries use sight-seeing. That makes me wonder why they don't use sight-seeing for boat too. But is pleasure boat an easily understandable simple, clear word for English speakin people? User Ruakh wrote he usually doesn't hear or use it. What do you define pleasure boat? Well, as for English...I don't knowOda Mari 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I hadn't thought of that. I'm not an expert on boat terms. Here are some links I've found: In the UK it can be used as "sightseeing boat" ; in Canada, as "non-commercial boat" (not a dedicated fishing boat such as a trawler, for example) ; not clear what sense these are ; here it's almost synonymous with "yacht" . So, it seems that in the UK "pleasure boat" can mean sightseeing boat, but that use isn't as common in the US and Canada. I'm American, and Ruakh is too, so maybe we should ask someone from the UK. Cynewulf 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't thought the word might be British English. I'm not an expert on boat terms too. And this is English! (Sigh) I just know the Japanese word 遊覧船 and it's a simple word like merry-go-round. As for the choice of words for definition, I won't tell you this is good, or this is not good. I think it's a good idea to ask some UK editor. Oda Mari 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at ] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The usage note for the entry was already mildly POV. The anon’s revision made it very much more so. Why did you undo my reversion? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does "POV" mean to you "disagrees with you"? Nobody says "campi" unless they've been spending too much time speaking Latin and too little time speaking English. Cynewulf 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I use it quite literally to mean “expressing a point of view; biased”. My personal belief is that campi is the only truly correct plural form of campus; however, if I rewrote the usage note to say this, that would also be POV. Would you agree to the usage note being rewritten thus?:

• The Latinate plural form campi is sometimes used, particularly with respect to colleges or universities; however, it is sometimes frowned upon. By contrast, the plural form campuses is universally accepted.

OK, not by me, but I am neither a recognised authority on usage nor a noteable proportion of the Anglophone population. By the way, it is inaccurate to claim that the us → i pluralisation pattern (borrowed from masculine nouns of the Latin second declension) is so unfamiliar to Anglophones (bar those fluent in Latin, as you suggest). Consider platypi, octopi, and a number of other plural forms of -us-terminal singulars which were hypercorrectly formed therewith. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Too much Latin, or too little -- using viri to mean "viruses" rather than "men". The new note sounds better. How about "common plural form campuses"? By the way, you may want to translate "recta" -- outside of medical jargon I don't think it's really used. (though there is a hilarious cite in bgc: "They were scared deep in their recta, but they leaped out of the foxhole and ran to the rescue ...") Cynewulf 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK now? Yes, viri is just such an example of hypercorrection (which, unfortunately, is the Latin plural of vir, “man”). Translate recta? How do you mean? I thought rectums was just a fairly recent capitulation to uninformed usage (in which dictionaries no longer insisted that readers use the um → a pluralisation pattern, as in stadium → stadia). I left anuses in place of ani as I recognise that the latter is much rarer. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you reverted a note to the effect that plurals of virus were unattested in Latin -- . I was under the impression that these forms were, in fact, unattested (see for example w:Plural of virus). Could you provide some citations with attestation for these? Or was the revert simply due to the bad formatting? Cynewulf 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was due to bad formatting, maybe I was slightly trigger happy. I have reinstated the comment under the standard Usage notes header, as this would be where most people are likely to look for this type of info. I'm unaware of any evidence that they are attested so I inserted the word currently before unattested.--Williamsayers79 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove from gan#Japanese the following line?

1. 元: first, beginning

がん is listed as a pronunciation of 元, so がん should have a meaning of 元 listed. Otherwise, we lack completeness. If you want to add that that meaning is rare, you may do so, but I've checked with other ethnic Japanese that were born, bred and lived their whole lives in Japan. The meaning for that pronunciation of that kanji is right. Thecurran 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because it was wrong. がん is only a reading of 元 when it is part of another word. You added it as a noun, standing by itself. The noun reading is もと, which also does not mean "first" but more like "origin". There is also げん (yuan). If you desperately need to add 元　to the page がん then add it to the kanji reading section. Please check your facts before contributing in a language you do not understand. Cynewulf 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I put it in the wrong place because I'm a newbie, but I feel insulted when you say it's a language I don't understand & you imply that I'm desperate. I would appreciate you not making such inflammtory remarks without knowing me. I also think if you know the right place to put it, then it seems more reasonable to actually put it there than to delete it. BTW, your page indicates that you are not a native speaker, so I do not feel those remarks are justified. Even if you were, it would still seem to be against policy. Thecurran 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time to make everybody's edits for them. Sorry, you'll have to learn our policies and follow them.

Which remarks? Check your facts? I checked my facts quite thoroughly before hitting rollback. Are you a native speaker? Are you saying that only a native speaker may revert your erroneous edits?

Which policy? w:WP:BITE? (and you think having a bad edit reverted is biting?) We aren't wikipedia, and I'm not paid to be nice. It looked like you thought things such as 元年 are two words; if you actually do understand Japanese, I apologize for assuming incorrectly.

By the way, your edits to 柯 哈 维 claim to be specific to the PRC, but you put them in the Translingual section. Are they translingual or specific to the PRC? Pages for single Han characters have to cover more than one language -- and I'm not aware of (e.g.) 柯 having any meaning related to Kyrgyz in Japanese. Cynewulf 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the following UN-maintained ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes for the 192 UN member states are also country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) & shorthand for those countries, which in many cases are already part of Wiktionary, I think they all deserve to bepresent: AD=Andorra, AE=United Arab Emirates, AF=Afghanistan, AG=Antigua and Barbuda, AL=Albania, AM=Armenia, AO=Angola, AR=Argentina, AT=Austria, AU=Australia,

AZ=Azerbaijan, BA=Bosnia and Herzegovina, BB=Barbados, BD=Bangladesh, BE=Belgium, BF=Burkina Faso, BG=Bulgaria, BH=Bahrain, BI=Burundi, BJ=Benin,

BN=Brunei Darussalam, BO=Bolivia, BR=Brazil, BS=Bahamas, BT=Bhutan, BW=Botswana, BY=Belarus, BZ=Belize, CA=Canada, CD=Democratic Republic of the Congo,

CF=Central African Republic, CG=Republic of the Congo, CH=Switzerland, CI=Côte d'Ivoire, CL=Chile, CM=Cameroon, CN=China, CO=Colombia, CR=Costa Rica, CU=Cuba,

CV=Cape Verde, CY=Cyprus, CZ=Czech Republic, DE=Germany, DJ=Djibouti, DK=Denmark, DM=Dominica, DO=Dominican Republic, DZ=Algeria, EC=Ecuador,

EE=Estonia, EG=Egypt, ER=Eritrea, ES=Spain, ET=Ethiopia, FI=Finland, FJ=Fiji, FM=Federated States of Micronesia, FR=France, GA=Gabon,

GB=United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*, GD=Grenada, GE=Georgia, GH=Ghana, GM=Gambia, GN=Guinea, GQ=Equatorial Guinea, GR=Greece, GT=Guatemala, GW=Guinea-Bissau,

GY=Guyana, HN=Honduras, HR=Croatia, HT=Haiti, HU=Hungary, ID=Indonesia, IE=Ireland, IL=Israel, IN=India, IQ=Iraq,

IR=Islamic Republic of Iran, IS=Iceland, IT=Italy, JM=Jamaica, JO=Jordan, JP=Japan, KE=Kenya, KG=Kyrgyzstan, KH=Cambodia, KI=Kiribati,

KM=Comoros, KN=Saint Kitts and Nevis, KP=Democratic People's Republic of Korea, KR=Republic of Korea, KW=Kuwait, KZ=Kazakhstan, LA=Lao People's Democratic Republic, LB=Lebanon, LC=Saint Lucia, LI=Liechtenstein,

LK=Sri Lanka, LR=Liberia, LS=Lesotho, LT=Lithuania, LU=Luxembourg, LV=Latvia, LY=Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, MA=Morocco, MC=Monaco, MD=Moldova,

ME=Montenegro, MG=Madagascar, MH=Marshall Islands, MK=The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ML=Mali, MM=Myanmar, MN=Mongolia, MR=Mauritania, MT=Malta, MU=Mauritius,

MV=Maldives, MW=Malawi, MX=Mexico, MY=Malaysia, MZ=Mozambique, NA=Namibia, NE=Niger, NG=Nigeria, NI=Nicaragua, NL=Netherlands,

NO=Norway, NP=Nepal, NR=Nauru, NZ=New Zealand, OM=Oman, PA=Panama, PE=Peru, PG=Papua New Guinea, PH=Philippines, PK=Pakistan,

PL=Poland, PT=Portugal, PW=Palau, PY=Paraguay, QA=Qatar, RO=Romania, RS=Serbia, RU=Russian Federation, RW=Rwanda, SA=Saudi Arabia,

SB=Solomon Islands, SC=Seychelles, SD=Sudan, SE=Sweden, SG=Singapore, SI=Slovenia, SK=Slovakia, SL=Sierra Leone, SM=San Marino, SN=Senegal,

SO=Somalia, SR=Suriname, ST=Sao Tome and Principe, SV=El Salvador, SY=Syrian Arab Republic, SZ=Swaziland, TD=Chad, TG=Togo, TH=Thailand, TJ=Tajikistan,

TL=Timor-Leste, TM=Turkmenistan, TN=Tunisia, TO=Tonga, TR=Turkey, TT=Trinidad and Tobago, TV=Tuvalu, TZ=United Republic of Tanzania, UA=Ukraine, UG=Uganda,

US=United States of America, UY=Uruguay, UZ=Uzbekistan, VC=Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, VE=Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, VN=Viet Nam, VU=Vanuatu, WS=Samoa, YE=Yemen, ZA=South Africa,

ZM=Zambia, ZW=Zimbabwe

• UK is exceptionally reserved in ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for GB and is another common ccTLD and shorthand for that member state.

Thecurran 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you mean TLDs like .zw? --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I want to have a page for ZW, because there are pages for many of those other capital 2-letter country codes to abbreviate those country's names. Many, like AU, CA or DE are not anacronyms. I find people with little experience of Zimbabweans don't understand phrases like, "back in the Zim". ZW, on the other hand carries the weight of the UN, ISO, etc. Zimbabwe & Singapore are English-speaking nations, so I think ZW & SG's use should parallel that of CA & AU. DE is in here and it's not even an English-speaking nation. The only reasons for exclusion of ZW and SG seem to me to stem from xenophobia from the North or racism. I know these words are quite negative, but I don't know how to put a polite spin on them. I am not accusing anyone of prejudice or looking to offend anyone. Sorry for possibly seeming inflammatory. If anyone has a really good reason why we seem to be treating the goose separate from the gander, I'm all ears. Thecurran 12:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be confusing yourself if you are just looking at the blue links above; they are all other meanings for the two capital letter entries, not the alpha-2 codes; CA and AU are common abbreviations regardless of 3166, note the definitions do not reference 3166. Look at TZ, NP, SC, IL, pick others as you please, note they are not defined as 3166 code points. The ccTLDs are all under the usual lower-case forms. .ca We generally don't have entries for code-points in a set like 3166, only for words and abbreviations. The 3166 sense at DE should probably be deleted. Robert Ullmann 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Thecurran, thank you for sharing your opinion. Do you really need to dump the entire 3166 table on my talk page? In the US, CA is California. It doesn't get used for Canada. Likewise, AU is astronomical unit. Wiktionary describes the words that are used in books and other durable media. If you want to add an entry for "AU" meaning Australia, please find three citations in print of running prose that read something like "So then I went to AU to see some kangaroos." No italics, no tables of codes.

Shouting "zomg racists" because you can't have your way is not a convincing argument. Note that we have some Singlish terms such as lah. Cynewulf 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

AU & CA were already there. They had nothing to do with me. We have BRB, BTW, IMHO, LMAO, LOL, OMG, ROFL, TGIF, ZOMG, etc. here. The country abbreviations are also useful. Many of those links do point to the countries. If you want to use the three letter codes like in the Olympics, that's fine, but picking and choosing certain nations but not others to be included is not fair. This is a global environment. When we talk with people in these other nations, we use them. Just because some people haven't experienced communicating with people in lesser known countries doesn't mean they should act exclusive. I included all of them to give an appearance of which were blue, to make it easy to test them yourself, to minimize my exclusion of people, & to show where we need to work. It took a lot of work taking the names from the UN page, looking up the codes, alphabetizing them, and making them linkable. It wasn't just a dump. BTW, Most people I know can tell whether OK is being used for okay or Oklahoma. Similarly whether AU is for Australia or astronomical unit. When you see x$AU, x$CA, x$NZ, x$SG, x$US, & x$ZW, don't you think of AUD, CAD, NZD, SGD, USD, & ZWD? Some people may come across these in global trade like ebay or in the news and not understand which countries these refer to. They would want to look it up in a dictionary. They may come here. I feel we're responsible for making sure they find what they need. I tried to tone down the mark of racism a lot, and specifically said I didn't want to offend anyone. Would segregation, keeping apart, or separation be more comfortable terms? Thecurran 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see, you're going to flood talk pages and call us racist until we do what you say. Goodbye, troll. Cynewulf 22:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We have pages for 2-letter abbreviations of many of the states in the US.Thecurran 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, this isn't quite as far-fetched as I first thought. If you wish to assist people looking up the ccTLDs, assuming they forgot the preceding period, it seems logical to have "{{see|.za}}" on line one of ZA. There indeed, are many problems with the WikiMedia search function. Using {{see}} might be an acceptable way to address that particular problem for ccTLDs...it certainly is more in line with how we do things here, anyway. At any rate, the WT:RFV#ZA is probably where this should be discussed. --Connel MacKenzie 00:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm scared? Am I in trouble? Am I getting booted? I'm going to just stay away from this topic & you for awhile. I thought I was engaging well in debate. I guess I wasn't. I don't know what you want to hear. Please, accept my apologies. Thecurran 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at length on my talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, your block on 59.93.1.205 is excessive for not having received a single user warning on their talk page, and leaves me to believe that good faith was not assumed in this situation. I humbly request that you consider lowering the duration of--or lifting entirely--the block on this anonip. Thank you, ZJH 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Your request is denied. See WT:BLOCK for our guidelines on blocking. Interfering with administrators carrying out vandalism cleanup tasks is not recommended. Cynewulf 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If this user emails OTRS requesting a block review, it will likely be reduced. One week - without explanation or warning is excessive. --Brianmc 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who are you? And where did this idea come from that a block is the end of the world? It wears off, they'll live. Cynewulf 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or what? You'll block me? I just wanted to give you my opinion on your blocking behavior, and I gave it. No interference intended. Please accept my apology, Cynewulf, for insulting you up on your high horse with my opinion as a mere community member. ZJH 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Touchy touchy. Interference meaning "use {{test}} or I'll have corporate get you fired!" or whatever your issue is. Did you get blocked as an IP or something for making a dictionary entry that talked about how great you are, at a Chinese language entry that meant "spatio-visual", like this guy did? What's your problem, anyway.. Cynewulf 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this has been posted at WP village pump or something. Hi everybody! Enjoy your wikidrama. Mind if we all get back to work? Cynewulf 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I personally find a block of one week for a rather stupid testing, with NO previous warning comment on the talk page of the person, very much against our spirit of openness. Yes, a block wears off, yes, they will live, but their experience with Wiktionary will be unpleasant. Imagine that the editor was a young guy, maybe just playing/experimenting in a rather stupid way. What will he do afterwards ? I am 100% sure that when he is unblocked, if still interested, he will transform himself in a bad editor, a troll, a bugger, a generally nasty person. Whereas, if you just let him a small gentle comment, saying "please, do not do that, you like the project ? Do not damage it on purpose", I am pretty sure there is a significant chance that the editor might turn into a good guy. Never neglect the force of being nice to people. Remember wikilove.

More disturbing to me though, is the way you reply to your fellow editors. Your answers above are more than short. They are borderline being rude and I find that unfortunate. Interfering with administrators carrying out vandalism cleanup tasks is not recommended is very simply obnoxious and a threat. What would happen if they were daring to interfere, maybe asking another admin to revert ? Would they be blocked themselves ? Would they be labelled trolls ? Would they been put on a black list ? I wonder. I find threatening others inacceptable. You seem to forget that being an admin is not a position of power, the position of a chief, it is the position of service to the community. The community makes the rules, you follow the rules. Anyone has the right to question the rules and to possibly make them change; threatening them is absolutely not wikilike. Rather, you should welcome the suggestions of your fellow participants.

Thanks

Anthere

Yeah, I'm following the rules, WT:BLOCK. If you want to change them, yelling at me is not the way. Try WT:BP, which for you wikipedians is where we discuss policy changes. Cynewulf 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are not being yelled at. Your block was considered excessive by two administrators from another Wiki project, and questioned. Did you verify the IP is not leased and likely to be used by someone else in an hour or two before blocking? Personally I've probably issued more blocks over on Wikinews than you have, I'd like to think I know what I'm doing, and as to some of your comments... Do you know who Anthere is? I presume not or you might show a little more respect. Also, you make the same resentful accusation that we're Wikipedians interfering. ZJH and I are most active on Wikinews. You can safely ignore Anthere as just another Wikipedian, after all she's only chair of the board. --Brianmc 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who any of you are. You're apparently all chatting somewhere about how some horrible admin is being mean. the "yelling at me" part was more to the others -- that was one edit. For people who don't have "deleted contribs" (like I don't on WP) here's the IP's entry:

   * 13:08, 4 September 2007 (deletion log) (Restore) . . shìjué kōngjiān (New page: shiju is avery tallented person, GOOD LOOKING,HIGH PERSONALITY, HARD WORKING ,VERY CRAZY,CLOSE INTARACTIVE GOOD FACE,VERY GOOD SMILE HIS CHARCTOR IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD)

The entry is for a pinyin version shìjué kōngjiān of a Mandarin Chinese term 視覺空間. This isn't somebody hitting "example image" fifteen times and leaving. I don't see how this is a test. The IP is out of india, and apparently related to CGM Data Networks, which on googling gets a lot of stuff that makes it sound like a proxy. Anyway, what's somebody in India doing talking about a Chinese person? On a dictionary? Cynewulf 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, Cynewulf, I think that your action were entirely justified. That anon’s edit was obviously vandalism, and it is absurd to think that it ought to be interpreted otherwise. No wonder Wikipedia has such a vandalism problem if they expect administrators to assume good faith of anonymous editors making vanity edits. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm just not good at this diplomacy stuff. Gimme some rules here... Cynewulf 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

We do not WARN vandals. Vandals are uselessly destructive. We block them out-of-hand. This entry was absolutely pure crap. It gets blocked automatically for a day (3 hours to one day to maybe more; we ask ourselves whether it is a drunk college undergrad, or just someone malicious ;-). The reason for one day is so that we don't have to waste time checking on how dynamic the IP is the first time; after that there might be some revision.

I concur with Cynewulf: the 'pedia has serious problems because they coddle and encourage vandals. Misguided newbies (and primary school students ;-) are different, and trivial to distinguish; they can be guided and encouraged. Do you really think it is hard to tell the difference?? Robert Ullmann 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Affect is not copyrighted, nor is affect display. I cite the sense from an authoritative source. PROVE that it is copied before you make reckless accusations. DCDuring 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't in any way use or refer to MW Medical dictionary so I am surprised. Please allow me to paraphrase. DCDuring 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard the word used in any venue as referring to 'strong' emotion. Please direct me to some source. DCDuring 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it did refer to "strong" emotion. My involvement to this point has only been preventing the introduction of copyvio material, which with your new rephrasing is ended. To investigate how the word is used, in this situation I would look in psychology journals for examples of its use. Cynewulf 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I got blocked after making the correction, while I was trying to send you a message. Message content now forgotten, except for Sorry and Help!!!. I don't remember what help I was asking for any more. The block gave me a chance to look at all my other copyvios. ARGGHH!!! Give me 'til the Monday and I ought to have it right. DCDuring 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you just archived four months' worth of RFV discussions. If you'd like some help handling all those entries, let me know, and we can divvy it up somehow. (There are probably other editors who'd be willing to help as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was just about to put on the robe, grab the scythe and go play grim reaper on May. If you want to grab another month that would be great. Cynewulf 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

k. I'll go for July. —Ruakh_TALK 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Obvious stuff in May is done. I'm taking a break, then I'll switch to the asbestos suit before going after the stuff that's still debatable. Cynewulf 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw your ambiguous comment there, in an edit summary. Lacking a better place to clarify, I just wanted to point out it was "Participles", not "participle". I have no idea if that was what you were concerned about, though. --Connel MacKenzie 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edit comment was concerned with "participle(s?)" (deleting which is fine), but you deleted "particle" -- "particle" is needed for Japanese, that's all. (は, で, を) Looked like you misread what you were deleting. Cynewulf 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes, the first edit was deleting the supposedly dup "participle", but actually deleted "Particle" ;-) Robert Ullmann

Thank you for paying attention to my call for a clean up, even if all you did was essentially swipe the problem under the rug a bit... I had tried to get some sensible discussion going on the discussion page but it got censored. Not by you, but I am rather amazed at the censorship, because there is a real problem here.

The problem is that as a word it is used in very different ways across languages. You could say that in a general sense buffalo is used for any heavy dark bovid with drooping horns and that holds for many languages including American English, but then if you try to narrow it down to a species it gets difficult. In British English you may well have a point of dividing into afric+asian and american, but that division does not necessarily hold for all languages and some may just have a word for one species. I don't think the name in say zulu can really be said to cover the asian water buffalo and the language may not have a word for a generalized drooping-horn-beast either. That may make it difficult to give a decent translation

nl:gebruiker:Jcwf

There's not much I can do. I don't know the other languages well enough to decide which translation applies to which sense. I'm don't think we should break it down by species in English; m-w.com, for instance, has all the bovids in one sense, with water/cape/American broken out as subsenses; dictionary.com/AHD likewise. Judging by how (deprecated template usage) cousin and (deprecated template usage) uncle ended up, it seems en.wikt is split on whether to use clarifications on translations when other languages make distinctions that English doesn't, or whether to use separate translation tables for each class. Please do describe the different translations into Dutch (and any other languages you know) in the newly split translation tables. Cynewulf 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just dug up and inserted your translations; please correct anything I may have gotten wrong. Cynewulf 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't even realize he'd added the math sense. Sorry about that.—msh210℠ 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries, you said that we should add "whatever is missing" to non-lemma entries. From your point of view, does that include translations from non-lemma English forms to non-lemma translation target forms? If so, what translation targets should be listed? All of the possible forms of the translated word or just the lemma form? Rod (A. Smith) 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, non-lemma to non-lemma translations would be helpful. I'm well aware of the fact that some languages have many ways to translate, for instance, "said"; however some have only one or two. So, if they're short, why not just add them directly: *Japanese: 言った, 言いました; but if it's too long, *Spanish: use preterit of decir, q.v.. Cynewulf 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

With that approach, what would happen if an English lemma didn't correspond to a foreign-language lemma? Would the translations at the English lemma page then give both translations to foreign-language lemmata and translations to corresponding foreign-language non-lemmata? —Ruakh_TALK 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm having trouble building a conceptual model here, let me think out loud a bit:

foo n. to bar extensively *Quux: {m|f}

argle blargle v. (3sg nullar form of ) to bar extensively

argh v. he had barred

Ah, but what if Quuxian verb conjugation depends on the phase of the moon... the whole conjugation table wouldn't belong in the translation table. OK, I think I see. (Is this related to Hebrew using as lemma the 3rd past however it goes form for historical reasons?)

Something like the secondary senses of cold → French would be fine, Use ... form of ("to be z"). Or just point to the appropriate form if there aren't too many of them. When things get messy, summarize with a note. Hm, difficult question. Cynewulf 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re: "Is this related to Hebrew using as lemma the 3rd past however it goes form for historical reasons?": Yes (and not just for historical reasons), but Semitic verbs aren't the only time it will come up; sometimes an English plurale tantum will correspond to a foreign-language normal count noun, for example. (To be honest, even with the current, non-main=stub approach, it's already a bit of a question how to handle this.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no language code go, and since no new 2-letter codes are being assigned, there never should be. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh well. I probably shouldn't grab that template name anyway. Cynewulf 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, could you make it a bit more obnoxious? Like maybe some screaming fonts?

Seriously, the collapsible section is far more distracting than just listing them. (Why this collapsible thing is so over-used I don't know; and it isn't even designed; I just stole the CSS from {{nav}} as a demonstration in {{trans-top}}. It should never have had 100% width when collapsed, etc, etc.)

Something quiet under "Alternative spellings" (or forms)? Romanizations are not pronunciations, eh? They aren't alternative spellings either. Why do we want them at all? We have the rōmaji. If they really are alternate written form of Romaji I could see that. Robert Ullmann 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, yeah, I was just deleting them but I decided I had to put Ptcamn's three-year-old stuff somewhere better than the bit-bucket. These are all his, you know. (竜馬 is particularly bad. 4 readings times umpty-two romanization styles.) I don't want them other than wapuro (it's easy to search with if you can't type Japanese), and I guess SGB wants a macron-stripped form for some reason , and there's bunches of IPs who add trans entries with kunreisiki (it's taught in 小学4年), but I'm not even sure some of the latin-oid romanizations are used by people other than this Diego Collado person ("sorẽgaxi"? 某), but he's got cites from a notable book there, sooo... sigh

I put them under pronunciation since the romanizations change based on readings, i.e. pronunciations, and if there's more than one ety they shouldn't be mixed in together. Hepburn is also based on the phonetics rather than the writing system. I was thinking of wrapping it up in something to show IPA like ko-pron does (whence I stole the code: 家族). Maybe banish them to the romaji form's alt-spell header? They're not really alts of the kanji/kana, you don't just change to romaji in midstream (日本語はmuzukashiiですね。), it's weird. I can't just pretend these things don't exist though.

I dunno, rewrite the template if you have a better idea (or implementation). Cynewulf 15:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mmm, I see A-cai likes the idea (if not the implementation) -- it would have made my life easier a few months ago when I had to figure out who this Qing diplomat was if I had thought to search for the Wade-Giles. </ramble> <wander type=off purpose="to find breakfast"/> Cynewulf 15:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

How's that? 竜馬 is now readable. Cynewulf 16:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much better ;-). What's with ? There is only one etymology (i.e. none specified at all) and the romanizations aren't the etymology? On rinko the entry already existed (purported Finnish, I'm not sure he would have created it?) I kinda like the idea of banishing them to the Rōmaji entry ... Robert Ullmann 08:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

With that exact diff, the revised and traditional Hepburn only differ when there's a syllabic n before a labial consonant, where traditional writes "m" to match pronunciation, and revised "n" -- "senpai" vs "sempai"; and nihon-shiki and kunrei-shiki only differ in things like voiced-tsu (du/zu) vs voiced-su (zu/zu), so they have the same romanization most of the time. As for the ety header, it originally contained an alt spell L4 which I turned into the template: When I'm doing this kind of formatting run I get in a somewhat mechanical mindset and don't really sidetrack to totally rewrite things. Cynewulf 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks for fixing the formatting for my christmas entry, i was gonna get around to it eventually but you did it so much sooner, and better too, i owe you a favor. just point out any hot girl, and i will introduce you to her :) Thanks a lot my friend. Arigatou gozaimasu Language Lover 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yay! Japanese adverbs. --EncycloPetey 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm already out of the running, even with that trying-way-too-hard thing, but I can at least work on normal words. Cynewulf 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Part of the spirit of the competition is just to have fun and improve Wiktionary while you're at it. Your entry will mean 34 new Japanese adverb entries, and that alone is worth cheering about! --EncycloPetey 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Referring to your comment on the RFD-page: what is the right procedure to delete a redirect? Just to notify any admin? Hekaheka 10:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply