User talk:Dominic/Archive 1

First off, the standard welcome stuff for people who already know much of what's going on:

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using ], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.

Note for experienced Wikipedians:

Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!

Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of {{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian.  —Dvortygirl 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had a request from another user to bring this list into Wiktionary, probably as an appendix. Could you please add it to your to-do list for us? You might put a See also somewhere in Category:1000 English basic words. —Dvortygirl 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the welcome! I'll copy that one over here soon. Dmcdevit 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

For some reason I am suddenly blocked from a LOT of wikipedia pages. could you please explain this and help me?

My E-MAIL is [email protected]

Thanks in advance,

Dave E

Do you want to explain why you helping the Vandal MRSC on wikipedia. I not that you do not come from the disputed area. So have simply sided with MRSC who doesn't come from the disputed area and claims his just made up policy is wikipedia standard. It is not can I suggest you block MRSC until he stops vandalising wikipedia and makeing things up. I also suspect he is a County Watch Vandal.--84.9.193.179 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the redirect & moved the Transwiki page --Versageek 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Dmcdevit 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm 100110100 of Wikipedia.70.74.35.252 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
I recreated the entry 18TH CENTURTY CLOTHING with {{delete}} just after you deleted it. Could you delete it again? Sorry, Tim w. 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. That happens a lot when an article gets deleted while a user is editing it. Dmcdevit 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, since it was the WMF board that closed tlh, there isn't much point in having these, right?

User:Connel MacKenzie/todo#klingon

--Connel MacKenzie 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh boy. Actually it didn't close tlh.wikt, which is in a timeless bureaucratic loop of having been created accidentally without Board consent with the tlh Wikipedia but also not closed, since the Board never voted on it. In any case, I think that none of those words, or the language itself, pass the CFI independence clause to be attested. Same for Category:Quenya language and any other (?) fictional languages we have. That was the point of my WT:BP#Amending WT:CFI. Dmcdevit 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just following up on the recent vote that approved you as a Check User. Were you ever granted access status? I don't know whom should be asked, but wanted to remind you. --EncycloPetey 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a steward gave it to me a few days ago. I guess I should have updated the relevant pages, but I hadn't gotten around to it. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

To save you the trouble of checking, I've already updated the relevant pages (WT:VOTE, WT:A, and WT:C). --EncycloPetey 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A user had a problem editing due to the blacklist; you added this a few days ago. What's up with it?

See Wiktionary:Information_desk#Help_adding_"Category:Persian_derivations"_to_"Category:Iran" Robert Ullmann 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've replied at the thread. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

All these entries have now been dealt with. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note on my talk page - I shouldn't really be here at this moment (its 3:15am on a weeknight), but it is addictive. I'm not especially active on Wikipedia/Commons at the moment (I'm not certain why) and Wiktionary seems to be eating up my time... :) Thryduulf 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your most recent edit to Template:wikipedia, may I ask why there is now a Wikipedia link to the left of the box? This looks rather odd, but I am hesitant to revert it, as I don't quite understand what you're attempting to do. Atelaes 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What don't you like about it? It's not exactly the best use of that new class, but that's because {{wikipedia}} is crap and I'm going to propose a new system. See United States for a mock-up. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess my question is about the redundant links. If you look at United States, under the Sister Projects header, you see "Wikipedia has an article on "United States."", with a link to Wikipedia and then a link to the Wikipedia article on the United States, and then a second link to the Wikipedia article on the US underneath. Why the second stray link? Atelaes 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I finally figured out what you are talking about. It's a technical issue, which I don't know how to solve. The template is using the new "InterProject" class" <span class="interProject">]</span> which puts a link into the sidebar, like the interlanguage links. Are you in IE? I normally use Camino, and it works fine, but I switched to SeaMonkey and I see what you describing. Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Firefox. Atelaes 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, it's a new .js. Try clearing the cache (ctrl-shift-r), perhaps? Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much better. I don't see you making any edit to the template recently....what happened? Atelaes 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I needed help with the coding (thanks Pathoschild!). {{projectlinks}} looks really good to me now. I'll go post to BP. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a confusing statement found in the links section of the fish page. I'm not certain whether it was caused by one of your edits or one of Davilla's, but "an article on disambiguation page" is not the syntax I would expect. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, oops. That wasn't meant to be permanent. There were two lines that said "Wikipedia has an article on fish" (as one was the disambiguation piped to "fish") so I was just changing it to show in a GP discussion that it could say anything you input. Now one line should say "article on fish" and the other says "disambiguation page on fish." Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now you have me perusing this project too. You are evil. EVIL!!! lol --Woohookitty 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You never replied to my comment at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion, so I just want to make sure that I'd fully addressed your concerns.

Thanks in advance,

—Ruakh_TALK 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a short attention span right now. :-) I'll get back to it eventually, but really, if it isn't addressing what I thought it was, I don't think I have an opinion. I don't really care much where they go, as long as I can put it somewhere and know that isn't controversial. Dmcdevit·t 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, the articles you have been replacing {{wikipedia2}} in with {{wikipedia}} all seem to have had Category:wikipedia2 added to them also. Is this part of the process as it seems a tad messy? --Williamsayers79 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I was using the category to find-and-replace and forgot to include that. Thanks, it's easily fixed. Dmcdevit·t 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lots of good words! I'm glad to see more regulars participating in the nominations these days. The nominations list is growing faster these days, andI had enough quality nominations for setting up July that I didn't have to add many of my own selections (except to round out the list with a few more verbs). Thanks for helping out! --EncycloPetey 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I actually wasn't sure if making nominations was more of a help than a bother. :-) I'm glad the WOTD is so well taken care of. Dmcdevit·t 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing from the edits you've been making just now that {{wikipedia}} will now support links to Wikipedia categories? --EncycloPetey 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If so, does the {{wikipedia}} template explcitly note that it's linking to a category, rather than to a page? --EncycloPetey 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I was about to do that, but I'm having more difficulty with this one that with the others. I'm still sandboxing, but when I finish, yes, it will say "has a category on:" just like the current {{wikipediacat}} does. I think the same can be added for disambiguations if we want, too. Dmcdevit·t 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool. --EncycloPetey 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, {{wikipedia}} should be emptied soon. I added the disambig function too, and should be able to knock out {{wikipediadab}} and {{wikipediapl}} once the job queue clears. Dmcdevit·t 10:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would have been nice to use cat= and dab= (it gets a bit long winded ;-) but that's okay. More seriously: can we lose the "has a disambiguation page on" and just say "has articles on"? "Disambiguation page" is wikipedia jargon, not a term in general use. And the 'pedia itself doesn't use it in presentation, except for the note at the bottom of the page. (It is used a lot in discussion.) When a 'pedia article references a dab page, it says "for other uses, see". (which does show the d-word, but I doubt most people notice)

And note disambiguation is a noun, not an adjective anyway ;-) ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, easy enough for the disambiguations, as I hadn't replaced them yet. I'll work on the category/cat later. Dmcdevit·t 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, now you can use either cat/category or dab/disambiguation. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of replacing wikipediadab with wikipediapl (which does not point to the dab page, which is what wikipediadab was apparently designed to do? Um, backwards ;-) Seems to me you are losing information (that all these have dab pages?) Not sure, I'm just observing. Robert Ullmann 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are we keeping wikipediapl permanently? Else there seems little sense in changing to it? Robert Ullmann 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I am now going to replace all {wikipediapl}s with {wikipedia}. It should work out in the end. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you are making these automated changes "(Robot: Automated text replacement (-\{\{ikipediapl\|(.*?)\}\} +{{wikipedia|dab=\1}}))" from a non-bot account? Thryduulf 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not particularly, but it's only about 5-8 edits a minute, and I'm hoping that there are not too many other templates to fix before it is finished, so this isn't a regular task. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That isn't too many in the grand scheme of things (although I typically think more than 3-4 edits/minute should be botted) but they're a large proportion of recent changes, and particularly my watchlist which is why I asked. Thryduulf 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Opinions, please. DAVilla 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I think that's overkill, and not likely to pass as a single package. I disagree with 3 and 6, at least, and some of those I don't disagree with, but think we should be leaving them to the individual, not making to many hard rules. Basically, I think we need an up or down (or neither) vote on the boxes, and then once we have that, we'll know whether we need to design layout guidelines for boxes or inline links. Dmcdevit·t 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was worried that you might disagree with 6, so I made Wikipedia a likely exception. Even with that you're not satisfied? I'd like to ask, when would you ever consider inline links to be a better option? There seems to be a strong drive to use them in place of the boxes, and I'm trying to work toward a middle ground that would not eliminate the boxes outright.

As for number 3, I'm actually just trying to codify current practice. Could you please give me an example or two where a link to Wikipedia would be appropriate from the definition line? That I've seen, even when definitions are regulated by a scientific body, the name of the body is linked within Wiktionary. DAVilla 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't violently disagree to 6, but I don't see the point. It should be on a case-by-case basis. If Wikipedia is an exception, by the way, that's more of a rule where this proposed rules is a proposed exception, since Wikipedia is by far most of the links. :-) Words may have many senses. It doesn't make sense to think that there might not be a word where each sense has an independent, legitimate sister project link to the same project. As for 3, I don't get the logic. Do you think Peronist has an inappropriate link to Wikipedia in the definition line? It looks useful and sane to me. A box or ===External links=== link to w:Juan Perón would be overkill, but that link gives context. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where links like this are useful to the definition, and, if its convention or not, it doesn't deserve codification into policy.

Personally, yes, I think that all boxes should go. And I think most people in the community do, too. I'd prefer if we didn't make unnecessary exceptions to that either. In any case, I think this vote does too much at once, without prior discussion on most of it. Everyone will find something to nitpick with at least one of the points, and it won't please anyone. Dmcdevit·t 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a policy vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products. Since you participated in the Beer Parlor discussion, you may wish to vote on the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 11 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 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you deleted Footscray without a clear reason and the last edit was not tagged for deletion. Would you please explain?--Jusjih 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It very clearly fails WT:CFI#Names_of_actual_people.2C_places.2C_and_things, and is not even a major place at all, by any measure. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found this when finding a broken redirect with lower case. I have included your reason when deleting the broken redirect.--Jusjih 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? - dcljr

Oh, it used to go with Template:wikipediamul, which was deleted. Thanks for finding that. Dmcdevit·t 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

AutoFormat is hunting them down and fixing them.

And we do not want to delete them, because people will think they should be using the capitalized forms because it is a header. We just let them use them, and then routinely fix it. Robert Ullmann 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see, you are changing the untemplated headers. This is no good! If the language isn't English, the template(s) require the language parameter! This requires a more sophisticated operation! Robert Ullmann 12:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can stop if you like, but I figured that it would be best to replace them all first, so that they are all categorized, and can easily have their languages entered by hand. At the moment, finding them would be a bit difficult, as if there is no template, there is nothing to indicate that they are out there needing work by hand, and they'll just sit. I started noticing a lot of these as I went through Special:Uncategorizedpages. Dmcdevit·t 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please stop. There is no reason to enter the languages by hand, any bot code just a bit more sophisticated than replace.py will have no trouble. Finding them is easy; you just skim the XML. Finding ones where the language parameter is missing is harder!

Consider: if you match the language and abbreviation headers at the same time, you can substitute properly. (have to check for English). If you are just trying to use the python module "out of the box" without coding, it won't be easy.

I haven't taught AF to do this (would be easy ;-) because what I really think we should do is replace these templates with standard header and inflection line templates, as with all other L3/POS headers. If I did teach AF to do it, it takes one line of code, as the language is already parsed:

• if header in : header = '{{' + header.tolower + '|' + lang + '}}

Robert Ullmann 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I set it even slower than going by hand to watch it go, checking for anything that might pop up, but I simply didn't register the fact that the non-English ones had different needs (and I'm not a coder, really. I was just trying to automate something I was already doing). In any case, I agree with you about changing the templates to the standard inflection templates. They have always struck me as odd, but I hadn't really thought about it. Dmcdevit·t 13:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great!! Thanks! That is the one I was looking for. Algrif 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Dmcdevit·t 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Appendix:English catenative verbs If you get a moment to look, any comments or contributions would be appreciated. Algrif 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have started a somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal on WT:RFD to delete France, since it is an encyclopedic entry for a proper name that has no attributive uses. I do hope you will argue the case for deletion, given this is what you argued with regard to Geneva Convention. ;) --EncycloPetey 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've reverted your last edit to Wiktionary:Whitelist, as those editors are already whitelisted. (Note that edits made by editors in the whitelist, which is implemented using User:Connel MacKenzie/patrolled.js, aren't automatically marked patrolled by the software; that only happens for edits by admins, and possibly also by bots (?). Rather, they get marked patrolled by administrators who have checked the relevant box at Wiktionary:Preferences and visit Special:Recentchanges.)

—Ruakh_TALK 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, I was just trying to figure out what I did wrong, when I realized that I was using a different browser, so the WT:PREFS cookies weren't in effect anymore. Thanks for catching it. Dmcdevit·t 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

>> Hi there. You've been around for just about forever, and I think you do some great work. Would you mind if I nominated you for adminship? :-) <<

I wouldn't mind: it would be an honor. —AugPi 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your change is losing the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive ... Robert Ullmann 07:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right, and it's already stopped (easily reverted, too). But I'm thinking about adding a "mood" parameter to the template, or some fix like that. Dmcdevit·t 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "form of" template uses parameter "nodot" to suppress the trailing period, so you could have " in the indicative." after it. But I'm not at all sure that is the pattern to follow; just pointing it out ;-) Robert Ullmann 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, but having looked at it, I think it would be nice to templatize both the indicative and subjunctive forms, and put them in different categories based on a parameter. What do you think of User talk:Dmcdevit/Test? Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear McBot bot operator, I seems that someone is completely messing up the spanish verb conjugations, allthough I yet did not find out who is the one to blame. I remenber that when it last revised e.g. almorzar the conjugations were OK, but now ... (compare for exanple with www.rae.es).Matthias Buchmeier 07:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It seems that at some stage (around July of this year) the Template:es:-ar has had support for verbs undergoing consonant- and vocal-changes, which got dropped later on. I see no other reason why the Template:es:-ar(almorzar) got replaced by Template:es:-ar by User:Mike Dillon on 28th of July and deleted later on. So there might a number of verbs with similar problems arround. Matthias Buchmeier 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the time I redirected Template:es:-ar, it was already almost exactly the same as Template:es-conj-ar except that it supported the ref_stem parameter for reflexives. When I looked at the history at that time, someone else had already unified the output format and calling parameters; I never saw any support for consonant or vowel changes. Look at the June 3 version of Template:es:-ar: .

As for the change I made on July 27/28, it must have been a mistake, since Template:es:-ar didn't support 4 parameters at that time and would have rendered wrong. I don't think I made any similar replacements, but I can't actually figure out why I did that. Around that time, I was mostly trying to unify the duplication between the "es:-ar..." and "es-conj-ar..." templates. Sorry. Mike Dillon 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think I figured it out. Template:es:-ar(almorzar) had been deleted for some reason on July 6, so all my change was doing was changing a template redlink into a working template. It was still the wrong template, but the almorzar template was deleted before I made the change on July 27. The entry for almorzar effectively looked something like this when I came across it and I wasn't familiar with the "es-conj" family of templates yet, including Template:es-conj-zar (o-ue). That doesn't excuse my not noticing that the conjugation table was wrong, but it's at least better than replacing a working template with a broken one (I certainly know that "almorzar" is not a standard "-ar" conjugation). Mike Dillon 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm not sure that Category:Plural forms is the best name for that category, since it isn't clear that "forms" means "verb forms". It seems like it could be confused with Category:Plurals. What do you think of naming it Category:Plural verb forms? Mike Dillon 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean. At the moment, I just wanted to create the category tree for the verb forms that will go with the new verb form template for Spanish verbs. The existing convention seemed to be "X forms" (e.g. Category:English second person singular forms) so that's what I used. The name may very well end up changed, but that will be easy to do, since even when they are populated with thousands of verb forms, it just involves changing the template and then editing the categories again. Dmcdevit·t 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You asked whether I would be interested in being nominated an admin. Well, sounds fine and even a little bit like an acknowledegement, but I don't really know what to say. What does it mean in practise? I'm a rather heavy user, but yet I consider my knowledge of Wiktionary quite limited in scope, meaning that I do quite basic stuff and mostly with Finnish entries and translations. I rarely venture into "improving" English articles, even if many of them would seem to benefit of an intervention. Another point is that I spend a little bit too much time with Wiktionary already. Is there any reading, which might help me to ponder your question? Hekaheka 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

um, what are you trying to do? Robert Ullmann 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to get it so it can be used on the verb forms that are used in Spain but not elsewhere, but the standard context template is being a bit too restrictive to do that, I think. Basically, for Spanish verbs, there should be two outputs, "(Spain)" and also "(Spain: formal)" since there is a form that is formal only in Spain, but exists elsewhere. I also wanted to get it to categorize these so that if I tell it it's a verb, it won't clog the normal category. e.g., {{Spain|formal|verb}} should make "(Spain: formal)" and categorize it to a more specific verb forms in Spanish Spanish category. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You need a separate template name or names, else it will not play nicely at all. You can't use the numbered parameters, they are likely to simply be the next label. Robert Ullmann 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Has there been any discussion or approval of adding es-verb form of to a lot of entries? I was asked to look at it, which I have for a bit, and it needs a lot of work before it should be used. Robert Ullmann 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I blocked it until you can reply. (Of course you can un-block it.) This template is not read for prime time, and this run was not discussed or announced. There is a high probability it will need to be re-done. Robert Ullmann 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. I've had to block your account as well; why does your bot config have your sysop account? As above, you can un-block yourself. Robert Ullmann 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ack! Thank you. I was not intending to replace all of these already. I was just tinkering with it, doing a few to see if I could get the bot to do things like fill in the "ending" parameter without a human telling it. Somewhere along the line I must have hit "always" for replace.py, instead of just the "yes" for each edit as I've been doing, and It was running while I was sleeping. Pywikipedia uses the sysop account in case there is a protected page, but I had no idea it used it to evade a block! That's not a great feature... Sorry for the trouble. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. As I said in the Grease Pit, it is an evil mis-feature; if it gets a block notice it should abort! I should get around to patching this. (Like I don't have 400 other things to do when I have wikitime? ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have an idea. You want to be sure that readers who are completely unfamiliar with Spanish (es-0) who look up Spanish verbs like habla get a quick understaning that it can be used with usted. I want to avoid giving inaccurate grammar information to es-1 through es-N readers. So, let's add examples like the following to third person Spanish verb forms:

Usted habla. - "You (formal) talk."

How does that seem? Rod (A. Smith) 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not fundamentally about es-0 readers; anyone should be able to get an accurate word meaning, and that's our primary goal. In an ideal world, a every article would have a gloss, but how exactly are you going to do that for all the thousands of verb form articles we have? That's the main hurdle, as example sentences are (possibly) automateable, but their translations certainly aren't, and that's what we want. As well, shunting information about word meaning off into the gloss without reflecting that information in the definition line doesn't make good sense, as it begins to look like the article itself is contradictory (definition says it's third-person, but there is an unexplained second-person gloss. Indeed, it looks like a copy-and-paste-, or bot-error.) I don't want inaccurate grammatical information, I just don't want our grammatical information to go in the definition line, if it creates an inaccurate definition. Dmcdevit·t 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, the current public discussion about the content to place into non-lemma entries is at WT:BP#Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE. Your comments there would be much appreciated. Rod (A. Smith) 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've been busy in real life this past week or so, but I'll try to catch up over the weekend. Dmcdevit·t 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The es translation for "affluent" doesn't seem right. May I ask the source of that translation? Rod (A. Smith) 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I don't even remember adding that, this many months later. I admit it looks a bit strange to me now. :-) Oxford has "afluente" for "affluent," but a different sense of the word, which we seem to lack (meaning "tributary"). Does that sound right to you? Dmcdevit·t 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that seems right. The English word "affluent" has shifted much further from the Latin sense ("flowing" or some such) than Spanish, etc. Thanks for looking that up. Rod (A. Smith) 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where do I go? I don't know what to edit or how to edit. Charming 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so it's just an aside to Wikipedia. This was made to correct the problem of definitions flooding Wikipedia, no doubt. Well, nice to meet you. Charming 04:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

How do I change my username? It started as kind of a joke, but now I have decided to assist this Wikipedia side project. Is the name "Nexus" currently in use? Charming 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"It appears to me that almost all of your recent edits have been unnaturally focused on Connel MacKenzie, including several not-so-subtle attacks."

I came here with the intention of editing, not fighting with MacKenzie. Unfortunately he's still up to the same old tricks.

"Adding a dump of copy and pasted comments calling him lazy is a bit immature, to say the least."

I disagree. He is subverting the supposed location neutrality of Wiktionary by picking on non US usages and making people jump through extra hoops to keep those words included. Claiming that all words should have citations is disingenuous in the same way that a policeman who tickets far more members of a particular ethnic group than the observed population of transgressors cannot simply say "well, they were breaking the law" and get away with it. (at least, not in the UK).

Since I believe that his actions are harmful to Wiktionary, in particular because they will disenchant new editors I have two courses of action available. I can either point out his partisan approach or I can start to flood the RFV page with perfectly legal RFV's of which tens, if not hundreds, of thousands can be found. The former method is by far the less disruptive.

"Without making any remark on the substance of your comments"

This, I am afraid, is the main problem. Apart from the rather lame "well, theoretically, all words should have citations", no one will comment.

"I would like to ask you to please disengage, and try contributing to another corner of this big project that doesn't include Connel."

Unfortunately, he's everywhere. I know this from experience. The problem is that as one tries to edit, in good faith, it only takes a few days before one falls foul of his partisan approach. I'd like to do some work here from time to time but his heavy handed approach persistently disillusions me. Despite the "head in the sand" approach of other admins here who may believe that it's just a personal thing, there must be some reason why, in the vast majority of cases when an admin does something annoying, it will be C MacK whose signature appears.

"Also, you have a dynamic IP address; getting an account would help us communicate with you better."

When I first came here C MacK blocked me for several days after I had a disagreement with him on the spurious grounds that I used one of the same range of IP addresses as someone else. This despite the fact that I had created an account and the vast majority of traffic from that account was uncontroversial addition/extension of words. No other admin would help me get unblocked at the time or even ask MacK why he had put the block on. I figure that he can't so easily get away with quietly putting a block on a whole range of IP addresses without his actions at least coming under some sort of scrutiny.

Finally, I am sad to note that although MacK has called me a liar, a troll and suggested that I've advocated copy violations, there is no corresponding entry on his page suggesting circumspection. Once more a case of one rule for C MacK and another for others? 87.114.156.2 10:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Now registered. House 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, my request that you disengage was not an invitation to continue the same ad hominems on my talk page. There is absolutely no reason for an obsessive focus on Connel, most users editing Wiktionary have probably never touched RfV, but you seem to gravitate there, and to the nominations made by Connel. It's not an accident and he is not everywhere. As for your backstory, I'm afraid I can't comment on it, or confirm your take, which seems like it may be a bit biased, since I have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't told me what account this is. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Please, my request that you disengage was not an invitation to continue the same ad hominems on my talk page."

Of course it was. When you accuse someone (immaturity - obsessive focus) you are clearly inviting a response, even if it is simply (as above) by way of explanation.

"Most users editing Wiktionary have probably never touched RfV, but you seem to gravitate there."

I was looking at "recent changes" and noticed that "shuttlecock" had been tagged RFV. That seemed bizarre so I went and had a look. RFVing the word which has a multitude of Google Book hits seemed strange, particularly as the page was well laid out and even had a relevant photo attached. Then the snide digs at Europe and Britain appeared. So I decided to see what else he'd been up to.

"As for your backstory, I'm afraid I can't comment on it, or confirm your take, which seems like it may be a bit biased".

That is, essentially, an accusation of lying. Either he did ban a named user who had not been accused of any offence (the comment in the log is the name of the other user involved) or he didn't. I can't see where bias comes in. Anyway, that was only related as an explanation as to why I was sticking with a dynamic IP address. I could find out the account name when I download the database and use certain tools I have available to scan it - it started 'Mog' as I recollect, but I really wasn't interested in dragging that up other than by way of explanation. House 09:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've made many color varieties and settled up with 12b on Wiktionary:Beer parlour#More logo conversation. What do you think about it, and how's it compared to http://fr.wiktionary.org where they use the Wikimedia logo? :) I don't want to hurry to the vote but I think at some point it's important to know what English Wiktionary as a whole thinks. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess at least the original version 1 would go to the vote. I still hope it'll be possible to create a version which also those who are sceptical to the original could support. I think I'll soon start to mark smaller those versions which won't go to the vote. There's a new version 12c too. It would be helpful to hear your opinions. :) Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've been a bit busy in real life and haven't been responding. I don't think it's ready for a vote. Let me try to be clear on two counts. First, I don't think there is any consensus on the scrabble logo. There are a few people going along with it because they don't have strong opinions and there is some vague, and misguided, notion that it has some authority. Personally, I have never liked the scrabble logo, and I've talked to Florence and Smurrayinchester's claims about the Foundation having made it "official" are false; there has been no action with regard to trademark or copyright, and no Foundation people seemed to have any idea about it. So there fr: doesn't use "the Wikimedia logo," there is no such thing, and no logo has been trademarked or sanctioned by Wikimedia. I see it as a poorly designed concept; it looks cartoonish and doesn't use the WMF colors. It also isn't dictionary-specific, and, indeed, has issues with being a copy of common (commercially-made) game. If we're going to change the entire concept of the logo, we need to scrap the existing one and the scrabble one entirely, and have a much more comprehensive discussion with new ideas.

Having said that, I am not trying to propose that. I think that whether or not we want a concept change, we ought to still make fixes to major appearance problems with our imperfect and outdated logo, in its current form. That's why I fixed the capitalization and IPA brackets and punctuation. It's not a proposal for a new logo at all, just a needed update to the current version. Even if we end up changing the design entirely, there is no reason not to make the fixes, since our current logo is flawed, and will be up throughout our decision-making process for a new logo. And it is not technologically very difficult to switch the logo. So I'm trying not to conflate the two issues of making updates to the accuracy and aesthetic of the current logo version (my desire, and a short-term goal) and changing the concept of the logo entirely (yours and others' interest). Also, I did at one point make smaller logos for the current version of the logo, to go in things like templates where other projects have alternative versions. See the bottom left two at Image talk:Wiktionary-favicon-en.png, put in a table for context. Dmcdevit·t 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, everyone seems to have a different idea what has happened. :) Since I wasn't here during that vote it's difficult for me to know. :) I wrote something about this also on Connel MacKenzie's talk page. I like your designs, but maybe there could still be some picture too. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The small-and-colorful logo is wonderful; let's switch to (a larger version of) that! —Ruakh_TALK 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which member of the Wikimedia Foundation did you contact? User:Eloquence forwarded me an "Intellectual Property Assignment" form from the Wikimedia Attorney which I signed and sent off way back in March (see my talk archives). I've not had a reply from them, so it's possible that the form was misplaced or failed to make it across the Atlantic, but they haven't asked me send another copy either. Smurrayinchester 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Florence is the Chair of Wikimedia. I don't think transferral of copyright actually means much (just that certain Wiktionaries have used it for their logo) towards officiality. Certainly it doesn't entail the monetary expense you implied would be involved in changing the logo. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Ruakh's idea is good. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dmcdevit, I would like to have another's opinion. I recently made an edit to the Wiktionary article bureaucrat. The edit in question involved me deleting something that sounded too much like part of the Wikimedia's user rights policies than something that is to be found in a Wiktionary article. If I may be so kind as to ask, was the edit I made valid? In other words, was the edit I made an acceptable reversion, or was the previous reversion acceptable? The differences can be found , along with an edit summary describing the reason I made the edit. Charming 07:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Saltmarsh wants to push something through on boxes. Is there anything in my long-ago write-up that you find objectionable? I know it doesn't quite define what you have in mind, but it wasn't meant to draw fine lines. The text was supposed to be fairly general, with later votes further refining the issues, particularly whether boxes should be used at all. So I thought to ask if your ideas are one of the possibilities outlined, or if you think any specific points cross some lines that you'd rather they not. DAVilla 03:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I see I'd already asked you about it. But I've changed the text since then, so it might be worth taking another look at. DAVilla 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Dmc, I was wondering. Checkusers check the IP addresses to see which accounts logged into the address, to confirm the tougher cases of sock puppetry, right? Is there any way to undoubtedly confirm whether or not a user is the same as another?

Like Robdurbar on Wikipedia and Wonderfool/Dangherous here. Even though they claimed to be in a different school, is there any way to undoubtedly confirm that they are the same person?

As far as the duck test goes, I'd get the feeling that Wonderfool wouldn't repeat the action a third time unless he wanted to get into honest-to-God legal trouble, and it didn't seem like he was interested in attacking Wikipedia. How did you confirm it was Wonderfool without any doubt? Certain IP's are shared. Charming 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thats OK with me, I'm flattered. I hope, however, been am administrator doesn't maen too much extra work. Matthias Buchmeier 07:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am User:Jerry lavoie, the same person as wikipedia's administrator "Jerry". I am trying to standardize my username across wikimedia projects, and I was wondering how to go about that on Wikitionary? User:Jerry has not made any edits here, so if the policy here is similar to most wikimedia projects, it should be usurpable. Your assistance would be appreciated. The courtesy of an email reply at [email protected], or a talk page post at EN would be appreciated. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found that there were too many trolls on English Wikipedia and decided to move elsewhere. I've been participating on different languages Wikipedias, different Wikimedia Wikis (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews etc.) and non-Wikimedia Wikis like Wikitravel. Personally, I believe Wiktionary's goal is much more amazing than Wikipedia's. Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia, something which has been done before. Wiktionary is building a multi-lingual dictionary where ideally one day any word in the 200 or 1000 most spoken languages will have a translation in English on this site. Nothing on this scale has even been done before.

I also saw Taxman here. It is nice to see familiar faces. If I have any question on how Wikt works or how it differs from WP, I'll let you know! Once again, thank you for welcoming me. DaGizza 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lately on Wikipedia, I've come across Wikipedia:User:Librorum Prohibitorum, who I suspect is a Hkelkar sock. He was revert-warring and accusing others of BLP even on his first day of editing. Can you please checkuser him? Thanks DaGizza 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've taken a look at Librorum Prohibitorum and found him using an open proxy, but I can't rally tell if it's Hkelkar, because what looks like his non-proxy IPs are not Hkelkar's normal ones. However, he is clearly someone's sock or reincarnation and doesn't appear to be up to any good, so I think the block is sound. Also note that he shared the proxy with w:User:Noolo and w:User:TheTonyExpress, for what it's worth. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, please. Can you restrain yourself a bit and stop taking away my free speech? I have fought constant free speech battles on WIkipedia and am tired of it. So, can you just leave the veterans be? --Ionas Freeman (自人) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is a dictionary, and not the place to exercise your "free speech." It is also the place for collegiality, not fighting battles. Please restrict yourself to worthwhile contributions to the dictionary. Dmcdevit·t 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have emailed you, and you have not responded, so check the email you registered with for emails, and please respond. --Ionas Freeman

This username is suspicious. They haven't contributed much, and not recently. Could you check? (Is there a page for requesting a user check?) Jonathan Webley 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing suspicious on the IPs. I think I am prepared to AGF here; probably it will never even make an edit anyway. :-) Dmcdevit·t 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As for a request page, the talk page of a CheckUser is as god a place as any, considering that we are still a small enough place for that to work. We have WT:CU for requests like WP, but I'm not sure the bureaucracy is yet really necessary on Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw you transcluding on anta (FL term) the translation section of tapir (English term). Where you testing stuff out? Is this still going somewhere? Otherwise I was going to clean it up with the other Translation sections on FL entries. Cheers, --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to remove it. That was just an experiment in the context of a BP discussion that was going on at the time. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello i have a question about a ip block 76 something as causewayer is now gone i know the ip is blocked for 3 monthes by you. I think it's a little harsh so if you don't mind could you unblock it due to people wanting to use wiktionary and they can't? Thank you Brockton --Brockton 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy birthday. --Dvortygirl 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! (I mean, good article...) :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might consider adding the same external link to the pronunciation guide site included on the Wikipedia page for Nevada.

BTW, although the Western states vs Eastern states common pronunciation of Nevada is generally true, the most common mispronunciation of Nevada seems to be on the news-media dominant Eastern seaboard and in southern states (including Texas). 74.52.179.146

How are you with basic template coding? Could you take a look at WT:GP#Template:la-verb-form help? It should be rather straightforward, but I don't know how to do this. --EncycloPetey 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. It seems Conrad was lurking around and took care of it already. --EncycloPetey 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I was just wondering what made you think I'm any good at templates... :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was planning to update part of the entry for Oregon. However, this is what I encountered instead:

I don't know what possibly "false" information Brown refers to. All I did was copy the Nevada pronunciation text (author unknown) from Wikipedia over to Wiktionary. Brown chose to undo my edit and substitute his prior POV text instead. What is this guy's problem?

I don't get it. The Oregon Wiktionary entry is missing any pronunciation information. I add the minimalist pronunciation information transferred from Wikipedia. Within a few hours some guy Connel MacKenzie deletes the update and IP/username blocks me from Wiktionary editing.

Is this really how Wiktionary is supposed to operate? Please advise. -- venusNV

Omigoodness. What is going on here? I can't believe I am dealing with this on like eight fronts. Please, please take a look at that block of text that I, then you, reverted. It's A) in a retarded /nowiki format. B) it's appended at the top of a COMPLETELY UNRELATED OLDER RFV DISCUSSION. There is a current (read: 6-month since any comment) RFV discussion that a contributor was attempting to archive, which caused this issue today. That discussion, which does relate to this /nowiki block of text, is not currently on the talk page. The RFV archive there now, to which the poorly formatted text was appended, is older and concerns a completely different sense! Someone, please see this or just tell me I am hallucinating. -- Thisis0 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are so worked up. Dave seemed to be working on RfV, and I noticed him on my watchlist adding that text to the talk page, and then you just reverted it without giving a reason. I think if this has gotten you that upset perhaps you should step away from the computer for a bit and come back after you've slept on it. It's really not that important. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know this isn't important. Can you see how only addressing my frustration and not answering my actual question just adds to that frustration? -- Thisis0 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The matter is resolved. I told you why I did what I did, and Atelaes took care of the rest. Perhaps next time if you don't want your attitude to be addressed, you shouldn't come to someone's talk page screaming after one little edit. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have re-re-re......removed the cites. The stuff that was added to the talk page was controversially removed from the entry and so has now been relisted on WT:RFV. Future discussion of the subject should really take place there. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want to that's fine, but can you wait a few months? I'm pretty busy right now. Thanks. Nadando 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. DAVilla 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've been rfv'ing some tolkien words and i was able to find support for one of them (didn't try the others yet). Since the tolkien books are so well received, most the LOTR stuff will have support if you look hard enough (some of the Silmarillion stuff is probably too obscure, I'll grant). For example I found plenty of support (independent & attributive) for ringwraith. One trick is to do a b.g.c. search for the word together with the -tolkien flag (read, "minus tolkien"). That'll weed out a gigantic majority of the results, and of the remaining ones, you can expect a handful to be independent. A similar technique probably works with other authors. If you don't, I'll put the tolkien support I find on the rfv page eventually. Just wish it didnt take so long to format those citations :/ Anyway, the point is, u can save all of us some effort by and provide us a great service by doing some research before flagging words. Language Lover 08:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are some obvious ones that wouldn't merit rfving, like lightsaber. ringwraith, however, is borderline, and those are the most important to cite. I don't understand your attitude that you have found "independent & attributive" citations, and yet you haven't added them. Presumably these attributive meanings you have should be added too. In a perfect world, all of our words and meanings will be cited, it's a good thing even if you think the word is obvious. You're right that I looked in the Middle-Earth category to see if we had borderline words there, but I'm not really about to spend much of my time sprucing up that area of the dictionary. I am curious how well the new policy works, and I was nominating a few to see if it was too lenient (as it looks like) or not, and honestly, if most can be cited as you say, then that policy might have been more harm than good in my opinion. Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure where was the problem there (unless you have a really odd definition of "alternative spelling"): it was already listed as such over at a whole nother, and had the same definition and tags (not anymore with your revert at the "'nother" version, though). I also did not "remove the citation"; I moved it to what was now lemma entry (since we do not usually keep them for non-lemmas, AFAIK). Circeus 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The change in general is fine, I should have followed-up with more explanation but ran out of time. I take back what I said about it not being an alternative spelling; I think I looked at a different diff and forgot to modify the edit summary after I noticed. However, there is no reason not to cite alternative spellings (indeed, we need to verify those, too) and the citation was clearly not for the new lemma spelling. I am also under the impression that the context tags should stay, as they still apply even when the definition line is just an "{{alternative spelling of}}." Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My thought was that sometimes only the alternative is proscribed (e.g. here is an emphatic, thoroughly unloved form of "another"), and that whatever tags were on the lemma transferred to the variations, but not the reverse, but maybe that's just me. I guess I sort of mixed up with fr: for the quote (quotes for all variations are listed at the lemma entry). Circeus 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it later. It's late here and I haven't been well.Barbara Shack 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not harass and attack Connel because he is unpleasant. I couldn't care less if he is unpleasant. I care that he is a VANDAL. Check a page I started a while ago User:Richardb/Monitoring Overzealous Admin and have added just a few entries to. He consistenly deletes pages without notice, misquotes CFI in a way that can only be deliberate and knowing. He always claims to speak for the whole Wiktionary community, when often he is going directly against something clearly stated in policy. The very reason I started the policy pages a few years ago was to try to get some control of Connel. And damn me if he didn't then unilaterally change and delete policy pages too. He is out of control, and a great danger to Wiktionary. And yet you are more concerned about me being "unpleasant". So, no worry, I'm not about to rejoin the community when sycophants still support Connel in his destructive ways. do something to get him under control, or continue to watch Wiktionary languish for lack of a decentr number of community minded contributors.--Richardb 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Without looking it up a Sycophant is someone who believes one person is right no matter what. I am collecting evidence of Connel's history of beign an admin-VANDAL, and give direct quotes of where he is deliberately misquoting CCFI. And what's your response. You try to delete the evidence!!! So wht wouldn't I consider you a sychophant. ? I have been battling with Connel on and off for about 4 years. At first I welcomed him on board, then I started to criticise his actions, asking him to be more constructive, to drop his Puritanical, Deletionist approach to Wiktionary. But to no avail. I tried introducing policies to bring him under community control. But mo, he vandalised those. An all teh while people kept sayinig "live with him". Finally, as many before, I gave up. I think the community is stuffed if people continue to allow Connel to get away with admin-VANDALISM.

But that will propbably fall on deeaf ears with an admin person who is prepared to delete a user's own page becuase it collects evidence of misdeeds by Connel. I guess I shouldn't waste much effort on trying to convince you. --Richardb 03:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you shouldn't waste breath trying to prove that personal attacks are acceptable, or that wheel warring is, for that matter. This is a dictionary. I don't know what purpose you think "collecting evidence" on someone in your userspace serves, submitting it to the High Court of Appeals? This is neither a courtroom not a battlefield, though you seem to think it is. Nor is it a place for gratuitous insults. You have achieved nothing productive at all with your antics, despite your claims of a moral crusade. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't even consider these English. They ought to be in the Quenya appendix. --EncycloPetey 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and I assume that RfV is the only way to get rid of them if they seem impossible to attest. However, I have to admit that I don't much care for these words at all, and so I don't really feel like helping build an Appendix for them as I go along. If someone else wants to make the appendix I won't mind, but I think we are better off spending our time on standard words. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you have deleted Category:Glossaries, stating in the comment: "{{es-verb form of}}". Was it intentional? Was there something wrong with the category? --Daniel Polansky 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I had meant to delete {{es-present participle of}}, a now redundant template, but I must have been in the wrong tab without noticing, Thanks for checking. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"I think you probably wouldn't break the wiki if we made you an admin. :-)"

Sorry, that's just too funny. 74.140.173.170 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is funny. - 75.69.27.71 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, we ought to delete it. --Wytukaze 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

is today's Urban Dictionary WoTD, in case you missed it. Congrats for getting it in 8 weeks ago. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, we should delete it. - Deletionist Extraordinare 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which part of "I stand corrected on risking copy vio." is beyond your level of comprehension ?--Richardb 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which part of "You're an administrator, please clean up the big mess you made" did you not understand? --EncycloPetey 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really liked your point of view on Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A. Your idea of:

"placenames that are used without context in 3 peer-reviewed journals intended for the general reader (i.e.: the readership is not confined to any particular geographical audience, or any academic audience of a particular geographical specialty)."

I think is the right way to go. It's more inline with the way we have the define CFI, and should encompass all entities in Placenames 2-A. Have you thought about expanding that into a vote? I'd support it. Other place names could be left to projects such as meta:Wikiteer. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you ever know what the "Category:Euro-Korean words" you are supposed to have deleted is all about. Just in case you're not quite sure, get it back right away, I should say. Or leave your reason at my user page talk. I know people Often like to behave funny. Thanks. --KYPark 11:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the archived deletion discussion. If you want to recreate it, go ahead - but please provide a reason on the talk page (probably best to copy the archived discussion there at the same time). In future could you please be more polite, your comment makes it sound like Dmc personally affronted you; he was merely enacting a community decision. Conrad.Irwin 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This reason is not enough at all, and grossly ridiculous. Therefore, get it back, I should say. --KYPark 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter what the reason was, that was what was decided. As I said before, feel free to recreate it. Conrad.Irwin 12:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you really a member, if not representative, of the decision-making admin community? I was saying that the decision was wrong, whoever was responsible. You said it doesn't matter what the reason was. Do you mean or admit by this that it was wrong in fact? Anyway, it's up to you to undo it. I would never bother re-creating it myself. You would know why. --KYPark 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's up to you to demonstrate the need for such a category. You've been pushing the Korean-IE connection for a long time, and everyone else still thinks it's bunk. Unless you can manage to convince someone else of the validity of your views, putting them into Wiktionary is going to be a constant uphill battle. Also, if you could stop with the snide little comments (i.e. I wonder if you ever know what the "Category:Euro-Korean words" you are supposed to have deleted is all about.), insinuating that everyone besides you is an ignoramus, that'd be swell also. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from the discussion you copied here yourself, there were two delete comments and one ambivalent (at best). It was deleted according to community agreement. If you disagree and think you have a compelling new argument that wasn't discussed there, please raise the issue on WT:BP. You should be asking there for the community to overturn its decision, not asking me to overturn the community's decision. I have no knowledge of Korean or the issue at hand and am not the one to be talking to about this. Dmcdevit·t 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a tip from an anonymous friend. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And mugglare. Again, remaining anonymous. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You do realize what anonymous means, right, Atelaes? Dmcdevit·t 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What?! Who ratted me out? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry for the idiocy from this IP. I've managed to put a stop to it, and the people who've done it have been severely reprimanded. Good day to you. --82.42.237.84 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the definition go in the article, rather than in the citation? SemperBlotto 07:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eventually, yes. I wasn't sure if it was worthy of an article due to the recentness, so I was just gathering citations, but I decided to write the proposed definition while I was saving the citations as well. As long as you're here, what do you think? :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK - also needs proper noun usage - a surname that seems to be derived from German "Neufang". SemperBlotto 07:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should the (empty) Category:Spanish Spanish verb forms be {{deleted}} or renamed? The current name is, well, confusing, to say the least. - dcljr 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dmcdevit, could you perhaps look into User:BangBang's request to be renamed to User!! over at WT:CHU? There seems to be a misunderstanding by the administrators here about his status and exoneration on en:wp last year by ArbCom. As one of ArbCom's prescribed remedies was to encourage him to continue editing, I thought perhaps you could help resolve the situation. Thanks! --Dragon695 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No longer relevant. Conrad.Irwin 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dmc, long time no IRC?! I was wondering if you could do me a favour. User:Anthurium claims to be Wonderfool and Willy on Wheels (though I doubt the claim), however I feel it would be prudent to run a check-user on the account and see if there are any socks lurking in the background - as that is the standard modus operandi of WF. Also, with Connel, TheDave and you all predominantly afk - the checkuser situation is fairly dire, any ideas what we should do about it? Conrad.Irwin 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Resolved. Conrad.Irwin 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Please glance at WT:CU if you're around. Conrad.Irwin 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are a large number of Spanish verb form entries edited by user:McBot back in April that utilise the apparently non-existant {{esbot:catline}} and also have the balance of square and curly brackets wrong (i.e.

verb=]}}}

, which doesn't work and should be one of

verb=] or verb={{{]}}}

. I'm not certain what the edits were intending to do with these so I don't know how to fix them.

I've only just become aware of them through User:Robert Ullmann/Mismatched wikisyntax#d. Thryduulf 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's a problem. The issue is that we used the bot to orphan and delete that template, but since some of those entries had mismatched bracket pairs (and so showed up in the article instead of being transclusions), they didn't show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:esbot:catline. I think I can now catch them all with a simple find-and-replace. Thanks for noticing this. Dmcdevit·t 01:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

AF was given a rule a while ago to fix these, and should have cleared all of them. Robert Ullmann 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in these edits you are introducing a blank line after the Verb header, and dropping the blank line before the first # definition line. Since you are going to the trouble of doing this format, we should get it right? Robert Ullmann 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You just running the bot unsupervised? When it isn't doing the format quite correctly? Robert Ullmann 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've had to block the bot and you to prevent it from continuing. Apparently you just launched this thing and walked away? Please fix it to format correctly, and not use your sysop account before restarting it. Robert Ullmann 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should re-iterate here that what the bot was doing was not terrible, just should have been a bit better. The serious problem is that it was not possible to get your attention while it was running. Robert Ullmann 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I never noticed I was blocked, anyway. I just logged in for the first time since. What the bot was doing before was the same thing that it had been doing for a while before that day, since back when the inflection template was first introduced. I never noticed that it had the blank line before the inflection line and not after, and I guess no one else really did either. It looks like there are actually far more of those left than I had thought, as I hadn't intended to run it unsupervised, I just thought that it would have finished on its own in a short while. As for the sysop account, the pywikipediabot does that all on its own, though that may be something I can turn off without knowing. The reason I have my sysop account linked to the bot is so it can edit protected pages if needed, but then it also automatically uses it if it finds itself blocked, too; I never restarted anything, it just kept going. Dmcdevit·t 03:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes ... the pywikipedia stuff has serious problems with using sysop. (Go see where AF tagged the main page as not having a language section ;-). Why it doesn't recognize a block and quit I don't know. Seems to me that would be very important.

Note that you shouldn't need to have your sysop account linked in; you shouldn't find pages locked sysop-only unless there is a serious problem with the page (which should be looked at anyway); the bot is "auto-confirmed", so it won't have trouble with semi-protected pages. (AF does need the sysop account, it has to read patrol flags so it doesn't try to format new unpatrolled entries.) There are only 10 full-protected pages in the main namespace and none of them are candidates for bot editing anyway.

In any case there wasn't anything really wrong with what it was doing; shedding the #-only lines and such is fine; just thought the spacing might be done "right" at the same time.

Cheers! Robert Ullmann 09:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've been using the page you made called User:Dmcdevit/Transwiki duplicates to purge out Transwiki duplicates and it helped me identify duplicates through the middle of 2007. I wonder if you have a chance to generate and post a new list? I found it truly helpful and would love an updated list. I am assuming you had a macro or something to make it. Thanks! Goldenrowley 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

I'm translating this paper from Spanish on Wikisource. Do you think you could help with a translation of that Latin motto at the top? It reads: "¡LUCE BEET POPULOS, SOMNOS EXPELLAT, ET UMBRAS!" Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The grammar looks a little off to me, unless this is a quote from some other source. The first word ought to be lux if it's the subject of the sentence. If it isn;t the subject, then the subject is missing. I translate this as: "May light bless the people, driving away sleep and shadows!" --EncycloPetey 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know you're not that active here, per the above notice here, but is it wrong to add a list of what words are related to what in other languages, as I did at the open entry?? AC --Sunstar NW XP 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Words that are related etymologically in the same language go under a ====Related terms==== heading. Aside from that, we list descendants in other languages and derived terms in the same language, but generally not terms in different languages that are related by sharing a common ancestor. Note that in all these cases, they go in separate sections, not the "Etymology" section. Dmcdevit·t 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply