This word is the 'pedia's featured article today, and so it might be worthwhile to give it a quick look-over. It seems to be in good working order, nothing embarrassing, at least. However, it might merit a little extra oomph, if you're up for it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused about your undo. I asked a question about hot dog and got what I believed to be a reasonable answer. Believing the conversation over, I made four edits: two removing the slang label, one changing the Japanese translation, and one changing the translation definition. Your message to me is that there is an on-going discussion (the one I started, I believe). I can see putting bun back into the translation definition, but don't understand why you have undone my edits. Wakablogger 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger
I'm trying to make articles for some notable dinosaurs, guess I wasn't looking close enough at the book.
Ohh yes, ok. That was actually italic that broke my parser. Sorry. I don't really care how is done, as long as it done in same fashion... TestPilottalk to me! 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about using the wrong procedure for this, but I had a little problem with this article, because I wasn't intending to move the entire "Photios" article over to Wiktionary. The Wikipedia article consisted of a disambiguation part (which stays in Wikipedia), and a section on etymology (that is the section I wanted to transwiki). Any advice? Sjakkalle 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I got your warning on my talk page about not creating interwiki links to another language's wiki, but I don't understand the problem. I created the interwiki link to a target page that didn't exist, then I used the red link to create the target page. Do you want me to do that in the reverse order? I might be missing something. Perhaps you can explain more. Using the example you left, http://pa.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/twelve is the page that you say doesn't exist.
Thanks, Kirk (user page | talk page) 02:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please show me the manual of style regulations as to your claim that any lemmicaly related word may be used on an entry in quotations.68.148.164.166 09:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
EP: following section is transcluded; you might want to change that? I was very surprised to see my comment end up here!
User talk:IdLoveOne/Template:archaic
As a courtesy notice, please be aware that this issue is being discussed over at WP:AN/I - . Not sure what it's doing there but thought you might want to know. 70.7.76.14 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Why http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Bourgeoisie&diff=4811019&oldid=4811016 when this is the English Wiktionary and there's an article in the English Wikipedia? --Espoo 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
{{cardinalbox}}Hi there. Could you create {{ordinalbox}} sometime - to match. SemperBlotto 14:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
{{cardinalbox}} before proceeding. I have one more thing I want to try. Once that's done (whether it works or not), I'll create an {{ordinalbox}}. --EncycloPetey 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks the the info on WOTD - are there any written guidelines so I'll know what to do in the future? Teh Rote 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a new declension table with possessive endings plus the case endings (hu-possessive-xx). The table is huge and does not look good when it is placed under the other declension table, see ház. If I leave out the case endings and just show the possessives, the table would be much smaller and I could even put it right next to the regular declension table. I am asking for your feedback because I'm not sure how to resolve this. Thanks. --Panda10 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, that was a fast response. I apologize, I'm using headphones, and I'm really unable to tell very well the difference in volume. I'll turn it up somewhat. Again, thanks for the quick response. Yerich 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Hoser, Why did you delete spinfinity? At least you could have left a reason why. Kinda rude, my entire is not good enough for you to even state why it was deleted?
Hey, thanks for the message! That way you showed me makes it a lot easier! Thanks for putting my new entries right too :)
Ok. My intention was not to remove any sort of pronunciation but to correct it to a more standardised form, since /ˈfoɻgo/ is obviously wrong.
in other words, there was no "US pronunciation" for me to remove, but an error instead.
i could've added an additional US pronunciation , but i didn't, that's all.
You wrote: I have reverted this edit, since it is unclear why you chose to delete those derived terms. A simple search of Google books turns up more than 100 uses of undivining. --EncycloPetey 08:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My response: I don't understand. Why the reversion? One-hundred search instances in Google, mostly redundant, do not validate the legitimacy or substantiveness of a given word. That's sheer preposterousness.
Hi! I know that IPA (or SAMPA) should be sufficient, but the most Italian dictionaries don't use IPA: instead, they only write their entries with the graphic accent, so that the people can distinguish e.g. between pèsca and pésca, or between àncora and ancóra. For instance, Zingarelli 2008 and Devoto-Oli (1971) do so. I assumed it as a slight "scientific" method to show the Italian words' pronunciation, and put it into Wiktionary. Moreover, I think it's not useless: all in all there is a lot of people that don't understand IPA, but are able to read correctly "pèsca". -- Sentinella 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, EncycloPetey, I'll talk with SemperBlotto! Bye, Sentinella 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Note some of the changes I made to the page format for combinative. These are standard for Wiktionary format: (1) Synonyms, Antonyms, Related terms, and the link are indented under the part of speech section, (2) Headers with more than one word (like Relative terms) have only the initial letter capitalized, (3) Synonyms and Antonyms must be paired with a particular definition. I have done this for the Synonyms to show you how this looks, but have not done the Antonyms. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not think I had made any change, merely provided an example that should have been exactly and fully defined by the existing textual rules. If the example made any substantive change, it's wrong, and should certainly be removed, or fixed. Does the warning you pointed out apply to any edit (in which case, the page should probably be protected) or only to changes to substance? (in which case, as I said, I don't think this was one) In any case, thanks for your vigilance. JesseW 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Instantly blocking constructively-editing users based on small edits that one does not personally approve of is largely illegal.216.221.112.199 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Stop being rude.
2. Stop lieing.
3. They were constructive
I'd like to show you my friend i named Merriam-Webster.com
"Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
Function:
Etymology:
Date:
Not only does it say that on that website..... but it also says the SAME THING on the French Wiktionary....
sooo.... in the end.... i guess adding fact to a site and standing up for the truth is blocked by the people who so very dont want that truth to get out. Its obvious why no constructivly-oriented user as myself enjoys the wiktionary editing expierience. Its because you are there to hide the truth, and block any dissent to your personal beliefs without regard for the Wiktionary RULES. 216.221.122.250 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You are twisting my words, i said Turkic... NOT TURKISH... and you are wrong in another aspect in that it does mention it and always has... "...borrowed the word from a Turkic term for "witch" (e.g. Tatar ubyr)." You also claim that ""Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." is made up information when its clearly on the French Wiktionary.... and if we get the word from French.... it should be noted in the English Wiktionary where the French comes from.... "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." means "From Allemann (meaning "German" in french) "Vampir", of Serbian origin"... Even on the English Wikipedia does it say that the french comes from German, but it also says the english comes from German as "possibly via french vampyre"... but french people have never used the word vampyre, its always been vampire in french.24.111.234.4 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is a declension type for Latin neuter nouns that have the endings -is (gen. sg.), -i (dat. sg.), -e (abl. sg.), -a (nom. pl.), -a (acc. pl.), -ium (gen. pl.), -ibus (dat./abl pl.), for example . -- Frous 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In respect of an edit including a template reference that isn't on wiktionary, Encyclopetey wrote this:
Do you merge word roots, then? If equivocal, equivocate, equivocation, and equivocally stay true to their roots in English (they deviate quite a bit from latin roots--the latin word is about sound, and the English word is about meaning), and one word is more useful than the other three, should I add crosstalk or should I just make sure they're all linked to the most jeneral definition? Brewhaha at TeraByte 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should pretty much leave creations alone. I would install redirections from Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks to the Ingglish (English) equivalents, because that's the only language I speak, and you say redirection is abnormal here. Who won't get my meaning from ekstra literality? Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks are regular spellings of English. They mean the same thing, because they sound the same way, so why would I create more than a redirection for that? For all I know, I'm the only one that uses those spellings. Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think homophone describes them better than a synonym for neologism. To describe them accurately, I need two latin words: heteronymic homophone -- same sound, different spelling.Brewhaha at TeraByte 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for community comment on the issues arising for your actions here. Knepflerle 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe some numbers are allowed here ; compare 1, 101, 666, 1337, and various other numbers with significance outside of their cardinal position. 2007 is on the wanted pages page, after all. Teh Rote 03:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In years past, I have searched through many works in trying to find out who first coined the word, "pyramidology." Yes, Piazzi Smyth, and many others, wrote about the Great Pyramid and its relevance to the Bible long before Adam Rutherford, but so far, I have not found where any writer before Adam Rutherford ever used the word "pyramidology." His definition and explanation for using this word is as follows:
]
http://www.41f8.com/Pyramidology_1.htm
As you can see, his definition is quite different from the later definition given to this word. As best as I have been able to determine, this later definition was actually created by those who oppose "pyramidology' by making it appear that "pyramidology" had to do with study of all the pyramids, and also involving occultic demonic supernatural powers and somehow related to the "new age" ideas about pyramids. From this the "new age" believers and others have began to use the word "pyramidology" as applying to their beliefs about "pyramid power," etc. In reality, the word "pyramidology" was coined, not as study of "pyramids" (plural), nor to describe "pyramid power," nor did the word have anything to do with the "new age" movement, nor for the purpose of seeking "supernatural powers" in the pyramids. It was coined solely to describe the study of one pyramid, that is, the one pyramid generally referred to as "the Great Pyramid," as related to the Bible. This word, as originally defined, does indeed describe the works of Piazzi Smyth, and many others who wrote about the Great Pyramid and the Bible before Adam Rutherford. Piazzi Smyth was not concerned about finding "supernatural powers" in the pyramids, not even in the Great Pyramid. Nor were many other writers, although they are often falsely accused of such simply because of their study of the Great Pyramid, and the corrupted meaning given to the word "pyramidology" by those who wish to condemn Biblical study of the Great Pyramid.
Like I have said, so far I have not found any writer before Adam Rutherford who ever used the word "pyramidology," and he is the first writer also that gives a definition of its meaning. Thus, I usually attribute Adam Rutherford with coining the words "pyramidology" as well as "pyramidologist." However, I also admit that it is possible that his father, John Rutherford, may have actually coined the words and defined the words, but this also is unconfirmed.
My website on the Great Pyramid:
(I haven't updated this in a while; there are a tremendous amount of links I am finding on the internet that I wish to add to the page.)
Ronald Day
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated at User_talk:Robert_Ullmann#Standardizing_dialects. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating this page. I was wondering how a user would find it. Is it listed anywhere? Maybe we should add it to Help:Index. Another thing. It might be helpful to add a sentence or two about non-lemma examples in lemma entries. Normally, I try to add examples that use the actual entry name, but in Hungarian, sometimes an inflected form has to be used. What is the recommendation for these situations? --Panda10 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I was not totally sure how to add/create the entry; I certainly did not mean to go against the standard on purpose. Thanks for the link; I'll update myself accordingly.
About which conjugation its in, I don't actually know, I guess that's a no-no. I did reference http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1108 which had "ieiuno (jejuno)", and http://archives.nd.edu/iii.htm which had "ieiunium : fast, abstinence, hunger / leanness, thinness". However, I assumed the first conjugation because the Spanish (Castillano) form desayunar has the -ar ending. You may also want to check the edits I made to editions to the etymology of desayunar: they may not be kosher as well. Elandres 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a Latin section at carpe. I'm guessing that carpe is the imperative of something, but my Latin isn't up to scratch. --Felonia 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I was mostly worried that it might have slipped your mind or something and was about to leave you a message. I wouldn't mind too much trying my hand at it, but I really think some sort of cheat sheet for the process would help any other person who would need to replace you. As is, one has to figure out how it works by themselves (And I would totally have forgotten about the archive pages). I really don't get what you mean about the "recycled pages"? I mean, they (Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/August etc.) just use the daily templates (And I can't edit them anyway), don't they?
At the least I'll probably go back to strike used noms and add the WOTD template on the pages for June, though. Circeus 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How about we try a smaller step this month, with the optional plan of having you do the whole thing next month, so as to ease you into it? I like taking a break from doing WOTD a couple of times each year, and September is likely to be busy for me anyway. What I can do is go ahead and select the words, put them in a desireable sequence, but let you tidy the definitions and set up the page templates. We can discuss later how I decided which words to use and how I determined a sequence for them. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing lollipop. I'm currently fixing accord. It's not quite as bad as it looks. I'm mostly making more work for myself by tracking down as many quotes as possible. Circeus 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Who is best to ask for UK pronunciations? At least the ones where non-rhotic accents will fatally have different pronunciations (cf. accord, occur, parvenu) should definitely have them. Circeus 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to bring this up for aaages. I'm slightly thrown by some of the conventions you use in IPA, well really only for the UK side, in particular using /i/. Now my understanding is that English generally distinguishes between short /ɪ/ and long /iː/ (with the exception of word-endings), and certainly, if I heard I would interpret it as representing one of the other two phonemes. I feel like I've seen you do this with /u/ as well. It may be different in the States (I know the OED now use /i/ for American pronunciations) but it seems, er, unusual for UK ones. Ƿidsiþ 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Has finally been re-generated. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Conrad.Irwin 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)