User talk:D1gggg
Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
- Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp. - You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.
Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Vahag (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. In the entry for на первый взгляд, you labeled the definition as hedge. I don't understand that. What does на первый взгляд have to do with a hedge (зелёная изгородь)? —Stephen (Talk) 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with a linguistic concept here: Category:English hedges
- But I tried to collect strings about politeness in Category:Russian hedges.
- In my understanding they are the most important in journalism. d1g (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't think people (the vast majority) will understand that. Category:English hedges is very technical, and only a few specialists might understand it. I think it would be better to remove the label from the definition, and then add "Category:Russian hedges" at the bottom of the page. —Stephen (Talk) 17:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- My HotCat plugin is still glitched; for me, it was easier to hide label using the code of lb template.
- We have to add category manually if we remove label
- Alternatively we can convert label to some appendix in order to keep specialized content. d1g (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Mnemonic category
Done fixed immidietly
Hi. Category names are usually plural, so maybe ...mnemonics instead of ...mnemonic? Equinox ◑ 17:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, should be fixed now. d1g (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- old module isn't functional AFAIK
- discussion is here Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/February#Proposal:_Implementing_Wikidata_access.
Done
We already have Module:wikidata. —CodeCat 18:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- module hosted at enwiki differs from wd or commons, any reason for this?
- I'm trying to move modules from wd, not sure if it would work. d1g (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Code from wd stopped at line 800; not sure how to fix it. User:D1gggg/wd_sandbox d1g (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat main reason why I copied another module is that I'm not able to get data using old one: User:D1gggg/wd sandbox2, any thoughts on this? d1g (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Module Errors
Done stress was missing, Atitarev helped with another template
Two of your recent entries are in Category:Pages with module errors due to problems with the input to the templates. One is because you didn't provide an accented form, which should be easy to fix, but I'm not sure about the other one.
Module errors are a serious problem, because the templates don't display any information, they're alarming to users and too many of them can clutter up the category so other problems are hard to spot. If you can't figure out how to fix the errors, you need to check the instructions at the template page (for instance, Template:ru-noun+) and, if all else fails, get help from someone familiar with the template, such as User:Atitarev or User:Benwing2. Please don't leave an entry with a module error. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I placed my requets at Module talk:ru-noun, not sure if it was the right place.
- I'm not able to edit LUA modules yet d1g (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
взгляд etc.
Done -∅ was used before
- Category:Russian words suffixed with -∅ created in June of 2015, by Cinemantique.
- Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/April#-нулевой суффикс
Hi. When you add -нулевой суффикс in an etymology, few English-speakers will understand what that is. —Stephen (Talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is a rare feature, but part of school curriculum.
- Even -∅ would be meaningless, unless you know corresponding rules.
- Category:Russian words suffixed with ∅ d1g (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- But only in a Russian school. This is English Wiktionary, and our users do not know Russian. нулевой суффикс could be appropriate in the Russian Wiktionary, but here it means nothing. We can't put that in our Etymologies. Everything must be meaningful to an American, Brit, or Australian who does not speak Russian. —Stephen (Talk) 18:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Stephen G. Brown, en.wiktionary.org isn't limited to English, does it?
- > but here it means nothing
- I created a page to explain corresponding rules, but it was rapidly removed: -нулевой суффикс. I have no opinion where to place such page. d1g (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Entries on en.wiktionary may be in any language. However, definitions, explanations, instructions, rules, and so on, must be in English only. You might make a Russian page for нулевой суффикс (without the hyphen), if it is a phrase that is used in Russian, and if the meaning of нулевой суффикс is different from нулевой + суффикс. Even so, you still could not use нулевой суффикс that way in the etymologies, because it has to be in English on en.wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 09:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Stephen G. Brown words are in en.wiktionary.org because they are WT:ATTESTed (in the current use).
- нулевой суффикс (nulevoj suffiks) is used in many current Russian sources, so any reader who wants to lookup definition at en.wiktionary wouldn't have such ability.
- This is not overly-specialized linguistic word, learners are heard of it. d1g (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the entry нулевой суффикс (nulevoj suffiks) (if you choose to create it), but with your use of this word in our etymology sections. That's not how we format etymologies. --WikiTiki89 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @D1gggg, yes, as I said, нулевой суффикс (nulevoj suffiks) is fine as an entry, but only if it has a meaning that is different from нулевой (nulevoj) + суффикс (suffiks).
- I am not sure that you understand the meaning of consensus. Your addition of the symbol -∅ needs to have consensus (general agreement from our community of editors). I do not think that anyone here agrees with you. Without consensus, your edits will eventually be reverted. Perhaps not immediately, but in a week, or a month, or in a year. I don't understand the meaning of -∅ as you are using it, and I doubt that any of our other editors understand it. If English-speakers do not understand what it is and agree to it, then all of these edits will ultimately be reverted by someone. —Stephen (Talk) 01:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the entry нулевой суффикс (nulevoj suffiks) (if you choose to create it), but with your use of this word in our etymology sections. That's not how we format etymologies. --WikiTiki89 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- But only in a Russian school. This is English Wiktionary, and our users do not know Russian. нулевой суффикс could be appropriate in the Russian Wiktionary, but here it means nothing. We can't put that in our Etymologies. Everything must be meaningful to an American, Brit, or Australian who does not speak Russian. —Stephen (Talk) 18:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Stubs
- Part-repeated request. I'm not adding templates when they have an error #Module_Errors d1g (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Creating entries/language sections with no headword templates such as {{ru-noun}}, or with a headword template but missing required information, is worse than useless. Not only is it misformatted and lacking in the proper categories, but it would have been easier for the people who have fix them to have started from nothing. By doing this you're wasting other editors' time and actually making the dictionary worse. Please learn how to do it right, or don't do it at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Not misformatted, but missing some important information (stress/POS)
- 2. You could use Template:attention to raise corresponding question (or add missing ru-noun)
- 3. I don't think mass rollbacks make the situation any better, see your talk page.
- Best regards. d1g (talk)
- Yeah, I agree! I wish that you follow the example. I actually find that quite annoying... @Chuck Entz have you tried to clean up some of the edits as well? — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know Russian well enough to supply the missing information. Tagging it for attention means that those who do know how to fix the entry are expected to do all the work for someone else's entries while that person goes on to make more work for them, all the while having less time to spend on creating their own, higher-quality entries. But really, my main focus was getting rid of the category built on a bogus pseudo-suffix that was universally rejected by everyone in the deletion discussion, and which was deleted by a Russian native speaker who didn't like it either. The deletions are a side issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a chance to look through your undoing of my reverts, and they all seem okay- at least you didn't restore the bogus category. I suspect that other Russian editors may disagree with your analysis, but it's not for me to weigh in on the issue. I haven't looked through the recreated deletions- I still reserve the right to delete anything with too much missing, especially when there are module errors, though I'm not in any hurry to do so now that the bogus etymology issue is mostly resolved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: Why 'bogus'? It has some meaning into it — it's really the equivalent to the translingual -∅ — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 00:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- No,it's not. "∅" is a recognized placeholder symbol. The other thing was text, rather than a symbol, and it was in the wrong language. By the normal conventions of dictionary etymologies, all of that says that it's a non-null actual suffix, not a placeholder. It would be like having an English suffix entry for -nothing. Even -∅ is a bit odd as an affix entry, since it represents an abstract concept with no spelling or pronunciation. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: Why 'bogus'? It has some meaning into it — it's really the equivalent to the translingual -∅ — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 00:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a chance to look through your undoing of my reverts, and they all seem okay- at least you didn't restore the bogus category. I suspect that other Russian editors may disagree with your analysis, but it's not for me to weigh in on the issue. I haven't looked through the recreated deletions- I still reserve the right to delete anything with too much missing, especially when there are module errors, though I'm not in any hurry to do so now that the bogus etymology issue is mostly resolved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know Russian well enough to supply the missing information. Tagging it for attention means that those who do know how to fix the entry are expected to do all the work for someone else's entries while that person goes on to make more work for them, all the while having less time to spend on creating their own, higher-quality entries. But really, my main focus was getting rid of the category built on a bogus pseudo-suffix that was universally rejected by everyone in the deletion discussion, and which was deleted by a Russian native speaker who didn't like it either. The deletions are a side issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree! I wish that you follow the example. I actually find that quite annoying... @Chuck Entz have you tried to clean up some of the edits as well? — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
module:multiply et al.
Done moved.
They don't seem to be very useful. If you are just testing things prefix module names with your username like so Module:User:D1gggg:double plus one. Thanks. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Giorgi Eufshi Shouldn't it be Module:User:D1gggg/double plus one with a slash? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
please stop for a moment making changes to Russian etymologies, thanks
not placing chains of morphs in etymology section, even if everybody else does it
Hey there ... you're working very fast and making a lot of mistakes, and you're also making wholesale changes to grammatical analyses that I don't consider to be improvements on the status quo. I would suggest that you stop doing this for the moment and seek consensus before making future changes. Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will stop whatever it means.
- I don't think that I made that many mistakes in native language.
- You should consider if grammar you think correct is actually correct, see your talk page. d1g (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is a wiki, which means you have to respect the contributions of others and get consensus for any major changes. You've had disputes with every other editor who works with Russian (except Awesomemeeos, who has his/her own agenda).
- You claim that you know better because you're a native speaker and you have a reference. First of all, access to a single book doesn't make you an expert. You've been arguing in a rather condescending manner with linguists and professional translators, who have access to the same sources as you, and have many years of experience working with Russian at a professional level. Second, "native speaker" can refer to anyone from children who are still learning to tie their shoes to university professors, so it's not a guarantee that you know enough to be writing a dictionary on the language.
- Your edits are so shoddy even I can see problems with them, and I've only had 10 weeks of beginning Russian (almost 30 years ago, at that). Combining that with high volume makes you more trouble than you're worth. If you don't start cooperating with other editors and improving the quality of your edits, you will probably end up being blocked- and not necessarily by me. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody was able so far to show what prior agreement was broken.
- My self-corrections are numerous.
- I would treat you @Chuck Entz seriously if you point to prior agreements.
- You overstate way too much and you also forgot how other "university professors" taunt me instead of searching for consensus or middle points.
- 42673503. d1g (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- A wiki isn't a game where you can do anything you want as long as you obey the rules, or a court of law where you show laws, rulings or precedents to make your case. A wiki is a collective body of work accumulated over the years by people working together. The idea is to combine your efforts with those of others to make a consistent, high-quality result. This body of work is the result of long-standing consensus, so additions should be consistent with it.
- If you want to make changes that are not consistent with that body of work, you must discuss those changes, at least in principle, with others who work in the area affected before making those changes, And you must have a consensus among the community of contributors working in that area. If there's a dispute, consensus means an overwhelming majority either agree or don't object- usually at least two thirds. You can't just say "there's nothing in writing that says not to do it" and ignore everyone.
- Here's the bottom line: almost every editor in the Russian community at English Wiktionary has objected to your edits, which are not consistent with the way Russian entries are done by everyone here. Many editors, including some of our most knowledgeable, have complained about the quality or your work, and about the amount of work necessary to bring it up to the minimum level for our Russian entries. The consensus in the Russian community here seems overwhelmingly against you, and yet you're still saying you don't have to listen to any of it. I note that you left Russian Wiktionary because your edits were being reverted, so you shouldn't be surprised at the reaction here.
- I probably already have grounds to block you now for disruptive edits, but it's better to give you a chance first. Some minimum requirements:
- Don't make major changes in formatting or etymological practice until you have consensus to do so.
- Don't add entries without definitions or the proper headword templates.
- Don't add templates without including the minimum parameters they require
- Learn to do things right so others don't have to clean up after you.
- Ask for help if you don't understand something, and don't make edits requiring that understanding until you do understand.
- Cooperate with others and listen to what they have to say. Show some respect- if not for me, at least for the other contributors.
- Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Calque vs. borrowing
Done
Please look at the definition of calque. моветон is not a calque, it's a direct borrowing of French mauvais ton. A calque is normally a word-for-word translation of a foreign multipart phrase, e.g. Russian водовод is a calque of Latin aquaeductus, both literally meaning "water carrier". Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I thought it would fall in SOP rule in mauvais ton.
- Thanks for clarifying calque/borrowing part, I was only interested in translations. d1g (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Warning
- I stopped edits on 19 April 2016; I only edit my own pages User:D1gggg/Template:not_a_morph, User:D1gggg/-//-
- Repeated requests
- Disgusting lies about me non talking part in discussions absolutely missing at least single way to define morphology of the word
- Groundless insults and bans about "edit-warring" Wikitiki89 unable to explain his actions: User_talk:Wikitiki89#octant, Template_talk:trans-top#link_to_wikidata_item, User_talk:Wikitiki89#D1gggg_Block
- Rua approves "equivalent to" analysis but also removes everything from page
I see that you're not trying to reach a consensus. Your edits are not impressive and you tend to edit war. I also saw that you removed a message from Stephen Brown who asked you to reach a consensus before introducing something new and controversial. If you don't change I will temporarily block you to allow you to think about it. Sorry, no democracy here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)