User talk:Gauss

Archive 1
Archive 2

Welcome back Gauss! Good to see ya again :)
Jesteś tylko na chwilę czy zostaniesz na dłużej? ;) Maro 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome! Trudno powiedzieć; nie wiem jeszcze, ile mam czasu. -- Gauss 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gauss, some citations for you re: Virtual Personal Trainer Earle, Roger (2004). NSCA's Essentials of Personal Training. NSCA Certification Commission. pp. 162, 617. →ISBN, 2012 Virtual Personal Training, Lance Armstrong, www.livestrong.com/article/352380-virtual-personal-training, 2013 Virtual Personal Trainers Directory, www.virtualpersonaltrainers.net, 2012 Virtual Personal Trainer, Paisley Meekim, www.virtual-personal-training.com/index.html, 2012 VirtuFit, www.Virtufit.net, 2008 Portland Business Journal, www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/health-care-inc/2014/01/cambia-leads-5m-funding-round-in.html?page=all inerTrain, https://www.inertrain.com/TrainerSignUp/TrainerSignUpInfo.aspx Gizmag, http://www.gizmag.com/go/3517/ Real Simple, http://simplystated.realsimple.com/2014/02/17/how-to-work-out-at-home/ Men’s Fitness, http://www.mensfitness.com/life/gearandtech/the-new-ultimate-home-gym/slide/11 Sun Sentinel Newspaper, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-virtual-training-google-hangouts-20130819,0,2522697.story Sun Sentinel Newspaper, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-19/business/fl-virtual-personal-trainer-20120816_1_clients-skype-social-media Virtual Personal Trainer Manual, Marc D. Thompson, ISBN: 978-0-9883440-9-9, 2013 She Knows Canada, http://www.sheknows.ca/health-and-wellness/articles/959853/virtual-personal-training Thanks Duncanmt (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gauss,

As I'm not a native english speaker, I'd like you to check this contribution. I'm not sure the definition I added is correct, and I think that in this case the mathematics term need to be written there too.

Thanks by advance -- Quentinv57 ✍ 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's usually altitude but I've heard the term height for the same object before. It seems that the relevant translation section of altitude is not so good in terms of French. -- Gauss 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay . Thanks :) -- Quentinv57 ✍ 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great stuff... allows for future entries to take their place. Thanks for your hard work. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Might be more productive to create new entries. -- Gauss 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thank you for blocked my bot! I make test run edit (aprox 16h for all wictionary). I testing standard interwiki.py in all wictionary (). I will be check every bug and I will give programists. In the future I would like make a request for bot flag (if it is possible). Karol007 02:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not just possible to make such a request, it is required. Generally speaking, it might be expected that bot owner familiarise themselves with the relevant policies (particularly if they are capable of understanding the language in which those policies have been written) and announce any test runs, for example on the account's user page. -- Gauss 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you create a new entry, it's better to leave the edit summary blank than to write "new". Then the contents of the new article can be seen in Recent Changes. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes. -- Gauss 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious why you still write "new". Equinox ◑ 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I consider curiosity a virtue. -- Gauss 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

:D Maro 20:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why do you consider curiosity a virtue? Equinox ◑ 22:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because curiosity is the driving force behind science and research and the key to progress of mankind. -- Gauss (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a list of missing audio files? Maro 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No. I add them as I find them on plwikt. How did you produce your list? -- Gauss 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see. This list... I found on pl.wikt a list of audio files with no entry (or missing link to audio file, I don't remember). But this isn't very useful for en.wikt – some entries (with audio) may exist there, but doesn't exist here, so they aren't on the list. Maro 19:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I created the list of all audio files from Wimedia Commons category Polish pronunciation. I think it could be helpful. Feel free to "clear" the list :-). Es ist zu schade, dass DynamicPageList doesn't work on Commons :(, so I had to make the list semi-automatically. It includes all (almost) files from the category, I can't separate audio files which are already added - it should be done manually. PS. Some of these words are very... weird... like 539 verbal nouns prefixed "nie-"... Maro 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a lot of work, thank you! The lists include quite a few terms that should/could be added. I'm not sure why anyone takes the time to record a sound file for a word like "niepośpieszenie" which has 72 hits on google.pl, and only one (!) of those 72 hits actually uses the term.. -- Gauss 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some words have only 2 hits in Google - pl.wikt and commons :) Like e.g. "wokółmostowy", "wokółsklepowy". Maro 22:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No i DerbethBot wszystko popsuł ;). Maro 20:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Witaj, tak, jak podałem w źródle, Rejkiawik to obecnie forma niepoprawna, którą KSNG stara się usunąć z użycia. To, że wciąż używana jest, nie znaczy, że jest poprawna. Ci, którzy używają spolszczonej nazwy, prawdopodobnie po prostu nie znają stanowiska KSNG, ale to nie czyni tego zapisu alternatywną wersją poprawnej polszczyzny. Podobnie jak powszechnie używane jest szłem zamiast szedłem, ale nie jest to przez to poprawny wariant.

Zgodnie z zaleceniami ONZ Komisja starała się wyeliminować niektóre niepotrzebne spolszczenia, które albo nie są szerzej znane i używane, albo ich forma budziła zastrzeżenia. W związku z tym należy np. stosować oryginalną pisownię nazw Niamey, Monrovia, Reykjavík, chociaż dawniej zalecano formy Niamej, Monrowia, Rejkiawik.s. XII

Pozdrawiam. 83.11.2.130 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will reply in English because this is the English wiktionary and this discussion might be of somewhat wider interest.

I have declined your request for speedy deletion without discussion because this is by no means a clear case. Your argument is fair and new but it does not justify speedy deletion according to the guidelines. You should add a standard request for deletion and open a discussion.

As to your point that an official authority opted for one spelling and aims for removing another from usage: Wiktionary records usage, not official policies. It does offer space for slang (see Frisco), alternative minority spellings (see Spiess) and misspellings (see pronounciation), and this is also the reason why your request is not uncontroversial — and speedy deletions must be uncontroversial.

Apart from a deletion request (template {{rfd}}) you might consider moving information from Rejkiawik to Reykjavik and leaving template {{alternative spelling of}} or {{obsolete spelling of}} at the former. -- Gauss 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

After thinking about it, the entry in Polish Wiktionary has been restored but with a remark that it is an unrecommended obsolete form and the recommended one is Reykjavík. Please do it also here because I don't know how you ussually write here such things.

Ad. misspellings: I haven't met a dictionary, which deliberately contains errors. There are many possibilities of misspelling of each word. 16:00, 4 March 2011 79.191.105.237

Forma "Rejkiawik" znajduje się w słownikach i jest jak najbardziej poprawna. To że KSNG zaleca stosowanie innej, to inna sprawa. Nie możesz po prostu usunąć hasła ze słownika tylko dlatego, że inna pisownia została uznana za wzorcową.
Czy dwutlenek węgla też mamy usunąć bo obecnie wzorcowa forma to "ditlenek węgla"? Twój przykład z "szłem" jest chybiony bo, w przeciwieństwie do Rejkiawiku, ta forma nigdy nie była poprawna, a wynika z zastosowania złego wzorca odmiany (podobnie jak "dawają", "oram" itd.) Maro 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maro, przeczytaj, co napisałem wyżej. Pomyślałem nad tym i przypomniałem sobie o dawnych formach. Jednak trzeba zaznaczyć, co jest obecne, a co dawne. Kiedyś jedyną poprawną forma było Rejkiawik, a teraz jedyną poprawną jest Reykjavík. Jeśli jakiś słownik zawiera formę Rejkiawik to ma nieaktualne dane, bądź w dawnym użyciu. Dlatego proszę, byście dodali tutaj adnotację, że Rejkiawik to dawna, już niezalecana forma.

Ale to czy jakaś forma jest dawna czy nie, decyduje sam język, a nie żadna komisja geograficzna. Ewentualnie słownik poprawnej polszczyzny, który, na podstawie częstości wystąpienia jakiegoś słowa we współczesnych tekstach może opisać słowo jako przestarzałe albo wychodzące z użycia.
Dodam jeszcze że "zalecenia" KSNG nijak mają się do rzeczywistości, a często są sprzeczne z tym co można znaleźć w słownikach poprawnej polszczyzny wydanych w XXI wieku. Poza tym dostęp do słownika ma każdy, i tam na pewno, ktoś kto ma wątpliwości co do poprawności formy, będzie szukał odpowiedzi, a mało kto wie o istnieniu KSNG i jej zaleceniach.
Na przykład ta nieszczęsna stolica Korei Północnej. Czy ktoś oprócz Polskiej Wikipedii używa formy Pjongjang? Zapewne jakby zapytać 100 osób to 99 odpowie że stolicą KRLD jest Phenian, a 1 w ogóle nie będzie wiedziała. I po co to zmieniać skoro od tej drugiej można utworzyć nazwy mieszkańców i przymiotnik, a od tego pierwszej już nie bardzo.
PS
w gronie KSNG wśród jej 19 członków jest tylko 4 językoznawców (a wśród nich zaledwie 1 polonista).
Muszę też stwierdzić, że dążenie do standaryzacji nie oznacza prawa do ustanawiania zasad pisowni polskiej obowiązujących powszechnie. Takie ma tylko Rada Języka Polskiego, a proszę zauważyć, że korzysta z niego niezwykle ostrożnie. Uprawnienia KSNG rozumiem jako prawo do proponowania formy oficjalnej nazw (zaznaczyć też trzeba, że na internetowej stronie Komisji brak informacji o jej uprawnieniach do wydawania decyzji ortograficznych). Propozycje KSNG nie mogą jednak w żadnym wypadku oznaczać, że inne nazwy są niewłaściwe
— Jan Grzenia, Uniwersytet Śląski

Maro 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greetings.

¶ Are you, if I may ask, confident that this oblivious inquiry is just an honest question? 75.142.190.21 10:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps 117.242.29.222 was just unable to scroll down. Perhaps the IP user is in write-only mode. What else could it be? -- Gauss 10:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ I see you decided to officially delete that talk page. ¶ I was considering replying to your last message (especially to how a computer user could not scroll, which sounded strange), but I was afraid I would unintentionally start up a long, unnecessary argument with you about this trivial topic, if I may say so. Thank you for responding, none‐the‐less. 75.142.190.21 17:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted by another administrator, not by me. -- Gauss 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Pardon my eyesight. 75.142.190.21 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing these; is it worth me keeping User:Mglovesfun/to do/sv-decl-noun? This is merely a list of all the pages that use sv-decl-noun (and templates which call sv-decl-noun) rather than one that are wrong. If you intend to fix them all, I'll delete my list. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll work through the transclusions of {{sv-noun-reg-er}} and probably stop after that. -- Gauss 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course, Latvian nouns have a gender. Masculine or feminine. --Lujk3 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the deletions you've done. It ate a lot into your editing time, for that I apologize. The plan is, in the future, to save others plenty of time. --Pofficer 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that but my opposing vote regarding the bot flag stays until it has become clear that the bot is functioning properly. -- Gauss 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. I will turn it off as soon as asked, and I appreciate the constructive feedback too. --Pofficer 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

JFYI, I recently created {{pl-decl-noun-n}} for neuter nouns (very similar to {{pl-decl-noun-f}}). And also {{pl-decl-noun-nin}}. Maro 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not a Wiktionary regular so I'm not sure of your procedures, but it seems this entry is OK. It's probably marginal, but seems on the right side of the margin, I think.

I don't have access to my notes and refs since they're deleted, but you can see them. The term was:

• Coined by the the French guy -- can't recall his name, but it's in the deleted entry -- and used in one (or perhaps several) of his works. He's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; whether the work(s) in which he uses the term are themselves notable I can't say, but probably. (The term itself -- in French it's ethnomachisme or something -- is included in his article on the French Wikipedia, though not his shorter English article.) He's more notable in Europe I guess.
• Use by Pat Buchanan in his new book (forget the name, its in the deleted entry). Buchanan's highly notable and his book naturally is receiving attention.
• Used again by Buchanan in an NPR interview the other day. NPR is a high-notability venue.
• And is in general although limited used by some other people, mostly right-wing or outright-racist types (including StormFront), as seen via Google. I included one or two of those in the entry, and there's a few more (not scores, but a few).

So regarding CFI this seems to meet "Attestation" #2 (use in Buchanan's work, and arguably French-guy's). It also meets #3 if you consider Buchanan's book and Buchanan's NPR interview transcript to be separate instances of appearance in permanently recorded media. It's not in "clearly widespread use" but it's in some use.

Beyond that, the overarching rubric is "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". A lot of people listen to NPR and read (or read about) Buchanan's books and might want to know what he's talking about, so... I don't see the reason not to include it. Thanking you for your consideration, Herostratus 04:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Recent neologisms do not meet CFI, it is quite clearly on the wrong side of the margin; otherwise it would have been a RFD and not a speedy deletion. Given the number of books published nowadays, a single contemporary book is insufficient for #2. A definition for the term seems to be given pretty much whenever it is used - so there is no reason to (ab)use WT as a medium to promote its visibility and use under the pretext of giving an explanation for something insufficiently explained. You might want to transfer this discussion to Wikipedia; their rules on neologisms seem to be more "flexible". -- Gauss 07:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

If recent neologisms do not meet CFI, then CFI should so state, n'est-ce pas? It's not just one book its two (including the French guy), in addition to the other uses. It's not defined in several places where I saw it used, and anyway so what? By that rubric we could exclude a lot of words. It's not really self-defining ("masochism" has a mainly sexual sense, and "ethno" is vague), and anyway we have lots of self defining words, one could infer the meaning of "anticommunism" by looking up "anti-" and "communism", but so?

In my opinion an RFD is in order. However, I'm not a Wiktionary regular, I don't know if this would have no chance and be a waste of time, and I don't know how busy you all are, so I won't press the issue. I request an RFD, but I defer to your judgement if you think that would not be helpful. Herostratus 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please wait a few mins, I'm testing a bug and I'll mark those few pages for deletion when I'm done. Thanks, Nemo 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Due to that I'm a bit new to creating pages in this wiki, could you give me some help with the templates of the inflection of German verbs, to:

- irregular verb with inseperable prefix

- regular verb with inseperable prefix

- irregular verb with seperable prefix

- regular verb with seperable prefix

-irregular verb without prefix

-regular verb without prefix

Or if there is a page, could you give me the link to it?

Thank you! Greetings HeliosX & please excuse my English

HeliosX (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Welcome. You can have a look at Category:German verb inflection-table templates. Unfortunately {{de-conj-weak}} is the only one with documentation how to use it. For the others, you could check examples by selecting "What links here" from the template page. Verbs with inseparable prefix are treated like verbs without prefix.

I'm not really familiar with those templates either. I just noticed in your new entry wärmen the form du wärmhst and found that this particular mistake could have been avoided by reading the template documentation or by checking/copying the template from a verb with the same conjugation, such as lernen which almost rhymes. -- Gauss (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you please create the Polish entry le for me? Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is no such Polish word. Maro 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Really? Then could you please fix the etymology at lai#Latvian that references it? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. There should be li. Maro 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please also check Big Mac#Polish? I think it needs a declension table... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to add one because there are various different ways how to spell the inflected forms (Mac'iem, Maciem, even Macem, just for the instrumental singular) — while it is just as well in use as indeclinable word. -- Gauss (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can't you choose the most common? Only one of those three forms actually is attested in Google Books (Big Mac'iem - 0, Big Maciem - 0, Big Macem - 2). Or at least a usage note... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

And none of these is correct... Maro 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Maro! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maro, I have to admit that I'm not aware of any standard on how to spell inflected forms of foreign words. Could you please point me to an appropriate source? (I found it somewhat irritating that "Big Mac'iem" has a lot more Google hits that "Big Makiem" but sure, people write how they want, no matter what is right.) -- Gauss (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, there is no one rule for that what you ask, but all spelling rules can be found here: . I haven't found an inflection for "Big Mac" in a dictionary, but it has the same pattern as "Balzac", "Chirac" or "cadillac" .

"Big Mac'iem" cannot be correct. You cannot just put an apostrophe wherever you want. There are rules where to use an apostrophe. , , , , , , i , http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aso.pwn.pl+243].

"Big Macem" would be correct if "c" in the nominative were pronounced like /t͡s/.

"Big Maciem" is another example of incorrect spelling. Words are usually written how they are pronounced. If you write it like this one, someone could read it as /bikmaćem/. So beacuse the foreign word get the Polish ending here "-iem", it should be spelled in a "Polish" way, in analogy to other words with the same declension pattern (like e.g. smak -> smakiem, Mac -> Makiem). Digraph "ci" is always pronounced "ć" (/t͡ɕ/) in Polish. Yes, there are some exceptions, like Latin derived words "cirrus", but there "c" and "i" are in the same morpheme, here, in "Big Maciem", "c" and "i" are from the separate morphemes. Maro 00:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. When you spot errors produced by my bot, do you think you could tell me the underlying noun, so I can either fix the noun or my bot, whichever is wrong. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the six cases where I deleted something during the last 10 minutes, the entry of the underlying noun was correct. At least how that entry appeared, not counting details like this. -- Gauss (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I made the mistake of believing the template documentation - no mention of positional parameters! (I'll fix the bot) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for continuing to cleanup after my bot. Now, German Wiktionary says that the superlative of (deprecated template usage) aggressiv is (deprecated template usage) aggressivsten but this online dictionary says it is (deprecated template usage) aggressivste. It would be nice to know which is true, before my bot gets to it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ultimately both is correct but limited to the appropriate context. You say es ist am aggressivsten, anzugreifen but die aggressivste Methode and for example (if the article is dropped, which is admissible in some cases) aggressivster Vorschlag . Note also the use of {{de-decl-adj}} which is surprisingly well documented. Generally speaking, I found German templates traditionally a mess. -- Gauss (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Danke für das Korrigieren (diff). Dummerweise, ich dachte Belutschistan is männlichen Geschlechts, wie Iran. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you think that it was a bad entry title? --88.251.237.56 09:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because google translate <anything> is not a valid entry, please see WT:CFI. -- Gauss (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why would you not put Staunton chessmen and Jaques of London up for discussion rather than deleting them. I believe these words/idioms/terms are dictionary worthy and should be in Wiktionary. Please put them back now and allow a discussion to occur, I will abide by the consensus. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

These have been obvious cases. You might want to search for appropriate citations and verify that your terms satisfy the criteria for inclusion before you add them. -- Gauss (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I did and they do, so don't be a terd, put them back with their citations and if you want more, then request they be added! WritersCramp (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

References are not citations, and references on the subject can hardly prove idiomaticity. I appreciate that you created those entries in good faith but I might warn you that we prefer editors to familiarize themselves with WT:CFI (note particularly the sections on idiomaticity, attestation and brand names) when pointed to a misconception, and perhaps also with WT:WFW. Also, we prefer not to be insulted. Besides, the correct spelling of the insult you used against me is turd. -- Gauss (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply