User talk:Mglovesfun

/Archives

new messages at the bottom please!

Thanks for creating this, and doing that recategorization job. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

So. Why was it "totally wrong"?

(Apart from the empty references section. The system wouldn't let me add them - I was trying to find an admin so I could when you deleted it.)

Drianmcdonald (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In vitro diagnostic is not a 'test', it is a diagnostic that occurs in vitro. It's a misunderstanding of w:In vitro diagnostics, which itself isn't very well written. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ahh. That makes sense. Wasn't clear you meant factually wrong. I copied over the definition as part of an attempt to merge w:In vitro diagnostics away, as the page is basically just a definition. I will probably try to create a better definition as part of the merge. It would be useful if I could add external links as part of the citation; as mentioned, I get an error message saying an admin needs to help me with that. Could you change my permissions? Have a look at w:User talk:drianmcdonald to confirm that I'm not a complete newbie.

But how would this mean WT:CFI#Idiomaticity? Isn't it just a diagnostic that's in vitro? In vitro has an adjective section. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Point taken. There are other things you can say about in vitro diagnostics that you couldn't imply from the words - industrialisation and regulation, for example - but they are not contained in the definition Drianmcdonald (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

these bad boys have been archived

User:Wiktionary User_talk:Wiktionary. What the Hell? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Italian Wiktionary has this word defined as "circus act consisting of juggling objects with your feet while you remain lying on your back and keep your legs raised more or less vertically". Any ideas for the English term? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Usually just called 'foot juggling', though that covers juggling with your feet the right way up too. Type 'foot juggling' into YouTube and the first results are for what you describe. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's the use-case for that one? <honestly baffled> - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's a use-case? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

A circumstance in which something would be used. But I checked on bgc and found many so it's apparently just my English provincialism which says masculine terms shouldn't be maternal. - Amgine/ ^t·e 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Instinct maternel? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gloves. Any chance you could " finish off the last three" so the RFD page can be trimmed even more. I'd finish them off for you, but I've no idea what you mean. -WF

Orphan them as using {{sk-noun|decl=foo}}, I added a decl parameter to sk-noun so that these would no longer be needed. You can archive it while the links are still blue. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. Show me with Peržan please. -WF

I have orphaned the templates {{sk-decl-chlap}}, {{sk-dub}}, and {{žena}}, so they can be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

One more to Speedy delete to keep RFDO looking slim and sexy. Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages/protection/script -WF

Wouldn't this be Paisa? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

That’s a good question, but I think the answer is no. Paisa doesn’t really refer to a nationality or an ethnicity, so much as it’s a sort of (sub)cultural/social designation. You wouldn’t capitalize redneck or bumpkin, just as you wouldn’t capitalize goth, skater, ese, etc. —Wiki Wikardo 03:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hinudstani isn't the name of a language on Wiktionary. You can use Hindi or Urdu. Hindi is written in Devanagari script (Wiktionary code {{Deva}}) and Urdu in Arabic script (Wiktionary code {{ur-Arab}}). Oh and Latin script names should never redirect to other scripts as this causes much confusion. Assuming you can, would you like to recreate your entry under this set of rules? Thanks, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

We've got ishq already: عشق, इश्क़. — Laurent — 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

If one searches on ishq now and looks around, one can eventually find a link to इश्क़/عشق—however, when posted, that was not the case. But ishq and pyaar, for example, are properly transliterated iśq and pyār; therefore, anyone searching for ubiquitious-but-not-scholarly Latin-alphabet representations will come up empty handed. Is there not some way—analogous to romaji—that we could include—very common—Roman Urdu spellings such as featured on Bollywood posters, television commercials, billboards, etc.? —Wiki Wikardo 03:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have often thought that we ought to include Romanised Hindi-Urdu and call it Hindustani - but I know that nobody else would ever agree so I keep quiet. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bollywood and adverts sidestep the potentially thorny issue of “Urdu/Hindi” by using the Roman alphabet. We have entries for misspellings; why can’t we include a non-standard, widely used orthography? —Wiki Wikardo 02:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This isn't the place to discuss it, but yes if used that usage should be documented. Presumably not every Hindustani word is found in the Latin script, just some. Hindi/Urdu entries also need to meet WT:CFI#Attestation (specifically three durably archived citations showing usage). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I can't figure out (from the French Wiktionary entry) what this verb actually means. The word entablature seems like it derives from it - but what are the scissors all about? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nor me to be honest. Can't remember coming across it in a sentence either, though it's very common in Scrabble because of all the common letters. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added it with an "rfdef" because the inflected forms exist. There are now 23 entries in Category:French definitions needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many native Khmer pronunciations have been given to Chinese characters, and should be documented as such. If not here in Wiktionary, then where?
推 = ស៊ុយ （suy)
姐 = ចែ (jae)
華 = ហួរ (huor)
etc.
Please advise. Have here on Wiktionary, or write a Wikibook?
Thank you ----mexicocamboya

Many native Khmer pronunciations have been given to Chinese characters - in what language though? Are you talking about Khmer being written in Han script, if so can you produce evidence to show that? Or if you're talking about loanword from Khmer into one of the Chinese languages, then that of course is etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Asside from the obvious loan words of Chinese origin, in Khmer, Cambodia's official language, especially throughout Chenla period, there were attempts to do so. Unfortunately most detailed records were destroyed by the Khmer Rouge regime, and are conserved chiefly through oral accounts through the monks of the Theravada Buddhist pagodas. I will keep my eyes open for some texts on the subjects in the international communities.

This sort of thing needs wider discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/October‎. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What does this term mean in Middle French? --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Presumably the same as it means in modern French. Do you have a specific citation in mind? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Judging from Google Books, I was thinking that there existed an additional sense: freedom or liberty, but I can’t prove this. --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

French Wiktionary already has a sense to cover this: "Liberté de corps et d’esprit dans le travail, dans les mouvements, dans les manières, dans le commerce de la vie." Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that it was broader than that. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does adoubement mean accolade in Middle French? --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can only look it up. Specific citations would help. http://micmap.org/dicfro/chercher/dictionnaire-godefroy is a good place to start because it covers the entire Middle French period. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Google Books doesn't get any hits for adoubement, they're all for radoubement. Looking into aisement so far, all the hits are adverbial (easily). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Try adoubements. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the usual interpretation is adornment or decoration. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gloves. Got this messing trying to feed a bot. Any solution?

"This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Users touching other users' user pages and subpages" --ElisaVan (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, no more bot-feeding for me then. One less task! --ElisaVan (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2359301/Neanderthals-talked-like-half-million-years-ago-shaped-language-speak-today.html Böri (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, though very preliminary. It does say "However, it might be harder to prove that Neanderthals contributed to specific words in our modern vocabularies." Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mglovesfun. Re this edit summary of yours, the error was introduced in this edit. It would be easy to correct it by a Replace all of <!— → <!-- and —> → -->, but I don't think it's obtrusive enough to be worth the bother. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will be away from this afternoon to the following evening, without computer access. And I work Tuesday morning so I probably won't be online again until Tuesday afternoon. Please be patient with the work MglovesfunBot is doing with English plurals; it's in three steps which means that all 120,461 entries have to be checked three times! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Should I say that the etymology is masculine adjective plus suffix -ment (as in bêtassement) or feminine (as in adroitement)? Italian, like French, creates them from the feminine adjective, but we use the masculine in etymology sections. Feminine is probably more correct, but masculine is fewer clicks for the user. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would compromise and write the feminine but link to the masculine. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tend to put the feminine. There's also the long-winded way "adroite, feminine of adroit +‎ -ment." I rarely have the patience to do that. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikitiki89's suggestion is fine too IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. I have used Wikitiki89's method in capitalement but it is more typing. I'll probably go with using the feminine. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I've requested the Latin etymon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've found a French-Latin dictionary that lists it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good-oh. I've created the entry; however, I don't know what that "Gaffiot" dictionary is — could you give me or link me to its bibliographical information, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm struggling to translate this. The obvious word is geometral but it has more to do with retaining proportions and perspective. This from Larousse:- "Se dit, en géométrie ou en dessin, de ce qui donne les dimensions en vraie grandeur ou en grandeur proportionnelle, sans tenir compte de la perspective." Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not really, http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/GEOMETRAL says something very similar. I don't quite understand why 'without taking into account the perspective' is such an integral part of the definition. If you look at en géométral in the link above. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. I have added the French, and updated the English to match what usage I can find. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You said: "As it stands, all this does it the same thing as {{plural of||lang=st|nocat=1}}, so it's not needed unless you can think of some Sotho-only features." Can I just confirm that I have understood you correctly, and that I can rfd that page, and then replace its usage with what you said? I have already tried the latter, and it seems to do everything I need, as you say. --Winelight (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I could delete it now if you like, it's pretty standard to speedy delete stuff with the creator's consent when a suitable replacement already exists. But, I think you might want to categorize these as Category:Sotho plurals, not as nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

By all means, yes please go ahead and delete. (But, I would point out that I - erm - "borrowed" the idea from other Bantu languages, so similar plural templates exist elsewhere, possibly unnecessarily, for example Template:xh-plural_of and Template:zu-plural_of.) Now, on your latter point, I've created Category:Sotho_plurals and hopefully got it right? Thanks for all your assistance so far. --Winelight (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

They seem to be categorizing plurals as nouns. But why? Is it to do with usage or to get the noun classes in there? I think CodeCat (talk • contribs) might be the one to ask. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{plural of}} categorises words as plural nouns, even though this is not appropriate for most languages. It's really only useful for English. This should be changed, but it would be a lot of work to do this. —CodeCat 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Though the idea of switching to noun forms for all languages has been rejected by the community. Anyway, the Zulu and Xhosa words seem to be categorized as nouns, not even noun forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not talking about changing the name of the category, just removing the categorisation from this template and putting it somewhere else (like the headword). This would bring it in line with other inflection form templates like {{feminine of}} or {{feminine plural of}}, which also don't add categories. In Zulu and Xhosa, plurals are based on noun class: even-numbered classes are plural. So they are categorised by the class, and then the classes are categorised as plurals. Sotho could follow a similar path. —CodeCat 18:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not comfortable with editing templates... so if there's something that needs to be done, there's little point in waiting for me to do it... sorry (unless someone wants to spell it out for me). --Winelight (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am bringing up ideas more than anything. A template like {{plural of}} can't be changed like that without some kind of consensus. I would like to gauge if there is any support for removing the categorisation (and bot-adding it elsewhere), before I make a proper proposal. —CodeCat 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually... I don't dislike the idea. It would solve the problem of some languages using noun forms and some languages using plurals by having the categorization outside the template, and inside head (or {{<language>-noun-form}}). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Yet another French word that I'm struggling with. Also, I can see lots of mentions but very few actual usages. Do you think you could have a go? (if you think it's worth it) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Never heard of them, so all I could do is look them up. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea if that sense is real. Just that isn't how we delete things; we use {{rfv-sense}}. It does claim to be archaic so it might be real. I'll try and find who added it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was added by Vahagn Petrosyan, so could be complete nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're a complete nonsense. It's in OED "Applied to any one having qualities attributed to the Turks; a cruel, rigorous, or tyrannical man; any one behaving as a barbarian or savage; one who treats his wife hardly; a bad-tempered or unmanageable man" with quotes going back from modern times to 1536. --Vahag (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you don't mind if I say that: The old litarature for example ansiklopedia britanicca says that Turks mean "order", "sober", "self dsiplinied". After the Ottoman Empire some Armanians such as in this case Petrosyan and other say nonsense definitions for propaganda reson. It ıs not true. I think this addition is JUST PROPOGANDA and HOSTtility... We don't need hostility and propoganda --]] ^{<font size="-2">]</font>} (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Persuade https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=persuade&action=history

I made my edits because there is a real distinction between "to persuade" -- to change someone's mind or induce someone to do something -- and "to convince" -- to bring someone to the belief that something is true. Unfortunately, this distinction is being lost, precisely because a number of people use the terms interchangeably now. In doing so, they're destroying a useful difference between the two words, and thereby, diminishing the richness and subtlety of our language. For instance, saying "I was like" is a synonym for "I said", doesn't reflect what most people would regard as correct usage. Just because many people say "I was like" when most people would accept that they really mean "I said", doesn't make "I was like" a proper exemplar of English usage! This "persuade/convince" distinction does appear to be a losing battle though, so I think those who, like me, seek to uphold the clarity and beauty of language -- and to maintain this site as an exemplar of correct usage, not as a mere mirror of (to a limited extent) popular usage -- are ending up on the losing side. A pity for English. Good wishes to you!

Well we're not an exemplar of correct English, that's just not our purpose. Though we do have tags such as {{context|nonstandard}} and so on for the reasons you give. However it seems to me that persuade and convince are synonyms under most circumstances. Synonym doesn't means 'always a synonym no matter what the context' but more like 'synonymous in some contexts'. Having said that, difficult to think of an example where convince and persuade don't carry the same meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's the source on this, out of interest? I was under the impression that ‘olive branch’ (as a symbol of peace) was (deprecated template usage) raim d'olivier in Old French (modern (deprecated template usage) rameau d'olivier). Ƿidsiþ 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whatever I was reading at the time. June 2010, would be Marie de France or La Chanson de Roland probably. Not sure if I'd got any further than that at that time. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ta. Ƿidsiþ 17:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but AFAIK bots need at least one interwiki to add the others; usually when I write a new entry on it.wiktionary I add the relative interwiki there and here on en.wikt, to help bots' work... but if you really think this is improper, I will stop (the truth is, I can't wait for wikidata's functionalities to be extended to wiktionary^^) --Barbaking (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe on the Italian Wiktionary they need one, but not here, no. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quel adverbe ancien français est plus commun ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub gives aillors as more common than ailleurs, and aillurs as more common than both. But the numbers aren't always reliable because some the some citation is found in more than one reference, and it counted twice. It actually gives 28 different forms of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Je crois que devrions faire la forme plus commune le lemme. Es‐tu d’accord, monsieur? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anglo-Norman Hub, I think anyway, only counts attestations from Great Britain. So it ignores France! Though in general the simple answer is 'yes', but it's a bit of a waste of time trying to find out which is the most common. Anglo-Norman Hub is handy in that it gives you a number. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me an example of an Old French reflexive verb, preferably one that already has a conjugation table? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You mean a table with all the pronouns in it? There isn't one on Wiktionary. I think all the pronouns are the same as the modern ones with minor variations (vos for vous, nos for nous). They use estre but the subject pronoun is usually not used, so « je me lève » becomes « me lieve ». The elided forms of me, te and se are optional before a vowel, so, « s'entramoient » or « se entramoient » for 'they loved each other'. The conjugation gives away whether it's third person singular or plural. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Entramer is an excellent example actually. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

On reflection, adding a reflexive parameter to the current conjugation templates is better than writing all new templates just to get the pronouns in there, but with the same conjugation! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any criticisms or suggestions? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, amer is irregular because the usual first-persons singular present indicative is aim, whence the French aimer. I suppose entreparler (if it exists, and I'm going to say it does) would be perfectly regular first conjugation. Like I say, creating totally new templates seems like madness when we have ones that do the conjugation fine but as yet don't support reflexiveness. Admittedly what you're linking to is the Spanish Wiktionary where the situation isn't the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I could use your templates, but they would have to be modified. They lack reflexion (as you said), elaborate compound tenses and they’re in the stupid rosbif language. Even if I did modify them, I predict that somebody is going to whine about copyright violations. By the way, I slightly modified my sandbox again, if you are interested. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at entreparler, I'm not so convinced myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my friend, what makes you think there is no article about the word outlet in the Finnish Wiktionary? --213.214.155.26 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nothing, just you put the interwiki in the wrong place, therefore if I revert a bot will add it in the right place. Hey, at least we're friends. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It actually was in the right place: fi is alphabetized as 'Suomi' (the Finnish word for Finnish). Also, the bots do check for straightforward cases of out-of-order interwiki-links. (Not a big deal, just an FYI.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea how you do things around here, but demanding a formal "deletion" of an unsupported definition seems very obstinate. I've tried to use the talkpage, so please return the favor.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You don't have the authority to decide what is 'supported' or not. I will nominate the definition myself now. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, the idea that my "entire argument is flawed" isn't shared by others. I assume that bothers you as little as the part about "Tricky issues" (maybe it's just too close to Wikipedia policy for your taste). But I suppose that you genuinely believed that a 3-day block was all that stood in the way of more rampant "vandalism" on my part and that you really were capoable of calling out bad faith as you saw it.

If you feel like deleting more of my posts, I've made one at WT:RFD#Molotov cocktail.

193.181.1.138 07:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo)Reply

You're missing the point. What you're actually asking for is to not be subject to the same rules as everyone else. It's very bad form to remove a definition unilaterally unless it's patent nonsense. WT:BLOCK is satisfied in that you were harming Wiktionary (it doesn't have to be intention, just harm) and that communication was unlikely to succeed on the grounds I'd already tried it and it didn't work. Again, in your next comment, tell me why you shouldn't be subject to the same rules as everyone else? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I love how you're all preachy to me about the "same rules as everyone else" about handing out a purely punitive block for "vandalism" you made because you literally didn't want to communicate. Good work on establishing credibility! :-D

85.228.17.74 01:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

And it's pretty amusing how you're telling me all this while I'm actively avoiding the block you meted out. As if your anger-blocking actually saved you any time or put a stop to any "vandalism". All because simply explaining yourself seemed a bit too taxing...

85.228.17.74 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're just changing the subject to avoid answering the question. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You, know I tried actually telling you that I didn't understand your rules and was expecting to be directed to some kind of policy page. Why the Hell else would I actually use the RfD from beyond the block? Your reaction was to reply with a declaration of bad faith and insisting that detailed rules are for someone like me to watch out for and for someone like you to interpret at your leisure.

Just think a little what it means when you block someone without engaging dialogue.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted this edit as a blatent and completely uncalled for personal attack. I am entitled to my opinions as much as you are, and my opinions should carry the same weight as yours. Whether or not a mushroom cloud is made of mushrooms is quite germane to whether or not an additional definition is needed or not Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

From Wiktionary:No personal attacks, "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." You should be ashamed Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I stand by this, my statement is factual and therefore I couldn't go back on it without lying. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:No personal attacks only applies to personal attacks, and this isn't one. The fact you don't like it doesn't make it a personal attack. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I consider your reversion a personal attack on me. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

How? I didn't say anything about you. Your comment paints with far too broad a brush, as it's essentially saying that anything I say is invalid. The clause from NPA says that comments like that can be construed as personal attacks. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Please do not edit war to make personal attacks. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  It was not a personal attack because it was not an attack at all. --WikiTiki89 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  I still find the comment completely unsubstantiated, highly inappropriate, and in general worthy of carrying no weight. I have as much say in RfDs as he does. If he doesn't like that I want to keep some things, well, that's just too bad. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  User:Wikitiki89, how do you reconcile his comments with the clause of Wiktionary:No personal attacks, "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." He is suggesting that all past and future views I made are invalid simply because I said them. Therefore, a personal attack Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Not if you interpret it as hyperbole. --WikiTiki89 18:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  If I had said something to that effect about Mglovesfun, I'd have been blocked. He shouldn't make a comment that can be interpreted as a personal attack even if he's joking Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Mglovesfun's comment was rude, but it was actually pretty good advice. People were wasting their time and energy replying to your nonsense, and trying to do so without being rude. They shouldn't have bothered, and Mglovesfun was just pointing that out.
  Would you have preferred "Don't feed the Purplebackback89"?
  —Ruakh_TALK 19:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I would have preferred no comment, frankly, and just let my "Keep" vote stand as one man's belief that something shouldn't be deleted Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Purplebackpack89, you are banned from my talk page for harassment. The slightest further hint of harassment and I will indefintely block you as a harassment-only account. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Was that block really necessary? I mean, I don't disagree with you, but CodeCat just got called out for blocking on his own as an involved party, and we should really give a good example and not resort to the very same behavior. It makes us look kind of silly otherwise. -- Liliana • 22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And I think the threat of a unilateral indefblock is completely out of line. —Ruakh_TALK 00:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

'Was that block really necessary?' I can't really think of another solution. On that grounds, both necessary and regrettable. I'm not seeing anyone coming up with alternatives. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I blocked Dan Polansky on the grounds of self-defense against harassment before. I won't hesitate to do so again. Well actually I'll hesitate but ultimately I will only allow myself to be pushed around so much. If such self-defense blocks are deemed invalid, then I'll be leaving all together. I don't want to be a sitting duck for abuse. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Abuse? Harassment? Indef? Excuse me, but I'm the one being abused here. If me asking you to not abuse me is abuse, then you saying all my RfD comments are invalid is also abuse. And blocking me (a block several other editors have taken issue with), that was pretty clearly abuse. And there's a pretty simple solution that gives us both what we want: interaction ban. I don't comment on your talk page, and you don't blast me on RfD, my talk page or anywhere else. It allows you and me both to continue actions with other editors unabated. (Note that in unblocking me, Equinox expressed the opinion that an admin MUST have his talk page open to comment from all parties). Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're impossible. Any attempt to communicate with you in a rational manner you dismiss it as harassment, making you effectively immune from all criticism. Effectively 'godlike', immune to the rule, impervious, impotent. What's the fucking point when the minority can waltz in, destroy the wiki and simply refuse to participate in any discussions no matter how reasonable. Perhaps I will just refuse to communicate with people no matter how reasonable they are and see how they like it. Now piss off. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Really, you will. And I might have to invite you over to Spain some day. --Back on the list (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

These ‘im leavin 4eva’ charades almost never succeed. He avoids it for a while, then he becomes bored, then irritated, then crazy, and pretty soon he comes crawling back like an alcoholic to a liquor store. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

In your memory, I shall dedicate February's competition to you. I hope you can participate. If not, I shall play in your stead. --Back on the list (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

He's still around on fr.wikipedia though. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this tag still needed now? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

How do you know prolongation is prolong + -ation? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea how this edit has improved Wiktionary. I have no way to track the plurals and add the genders one by one. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun, You have removed one edit by me. (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?diff=next&oldid=22463389) Can you please tell me the reason for it?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interwiki links are used to link to the same word in other Wiktionaries, not for translations. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind checking out yfela and yfelum and letting me know if I created them properly?--Brett (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks ok, although there is no need to use sc=Latinx as this is done automatically. And also no need to include the "Old English adjective forms" category explicitly, as the {{head}} template already adds this. —CodeCat 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is it confirmed? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau: nobody uses this page any more. Try user talk:Renard Migrant, you’ll get a response there. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I see that you have seemingly quit Wiktionary; I would like to encourage you to return sometime. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that the following edit introduced an error into Wiktionary: . In the edit, you seemingly accidentally removed the Simplified Chinese from the entry. I corrected the error today, six and a half years later. Just letting you know. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply