User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/12

diff

I agree we should stick to "ISO" languages (ang vs. enm) as far as possible.

But the fact of linguistic reality is that the Middle Ages knew no orthography, and spellings like uualcyrge, wælcyrge, wælcyrige, walcrigge, walcyrge, wælcerie, wælcyrie, wælkyrie, walkirie, walkyrie are just tumbled together. It is absolutely futile to draw a clean line which are only Old English, which are only Middle English, and which may be both. You would literally need to review every known manuscript to be sure, and at the end of the day the information will not even be useful, because it will be a coincidence of tradition.

The lack of standard orthography during the Middle Ages really serves to point out the futility of Wiktionary's approach of "one page per possible spelling": Do you seriously propose we need should create ten pages, uualcyrge, wælcyrge, wælcyrige, walcrigge, walcyrge, wælcerie, wælcyrie, wælkyrie, walkirie, walkyrie, and the same for every word recorded in any medieval language?

The only sane approach will be to compile a single lemma about this word. But I am not here to campaign to make Wiktionary a saner place, I am just saying that some of our guidelines are misguided for pre-modern orthographies because they were intended for modern orthographies. Yes, this is in the field of "neatness and regularity". I guess I am saying that when your source material is neither neat nor regular, you can actually do injustice to what you are trying to document by imposing your own, artificial, neatness and regularity on it.

The wise approach will be to do what Wikipedians call w:WP:UCS in these cases. I am not forcing anyone to do that, I am just stating that this is what I intend to do in such contributions as I make. --Dbachmann 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Point one, the header ===Alternative spellings=== is official obsolete (and I didn't even support that proposal) so please don't use it; a bot will eventually change any that you add, but it's quicker to miss out the middle step and just don't use it.

Secondly, regarding "Do you seriously propose we need should create ten pages" I don't see the relevance; I generally don't bother creating all attestable Old French forms but instead list them as alternative forms so when people search for them (if ever) they will at least get a result in the search! Still, I do link 'em anyway as they're valid page names. Again, can't quite see how this is related to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've found kа. It's supposed to be the Roman equivalent of Serbo-Croatian ка, but its a is actually Cyrillic (but its k is Roman). The correct entry exists at (the all-Roman) ka. Could you speedy delete it? --JorisvS 18:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. In the future, you can just add {{d|reason}} to something for speedy deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would have straight deleted it too. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is the gloss I gave "capitalisme" in the etymology a correct reading of the sense Roberts gives for the 1753 meaning ? It is very consistent with Thackeray's first use and quite different from our senses. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't use that link - is it to the TLFi? As there is another online version of it I can use. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note to self, do this! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Errorless. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I do not have to enter at least the first interwiki ? can you answert on my page, thanks --Hgav 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I always thought that to make the connections between different languages have to put a reciprocal link first.

In fact, very often I find words that have the connection in only one direction. However if you claim that you do not need, from now on I will avoid adding

• There is one interwiki bot on it:, Lucas-bot:

(diff | cron) . . mb свет‎; 14:49 . . (+16) . . Luckas-bot (Discussione | contributi) (r2.7.1) (Bot: Aggiungo: lt:свет)

The bot hasn't done that because you've added an interwiki, but inspite of it; had you not added the interwiki it would ave simultaneously added ]. In short, no, you don't need to add any interwikis by hand.

The reason some interwikis are not reciprocal is because it takes time; on it: you should consider having more than one interwiki bot (we have about five). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, you are helping me again and again. --Amit6 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry for inconvenience and for my bad english but I need help about the deletion of a few words i've created. How i can to delete them? please help me. cheers :) --Zoologo 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can tag them for deletion by adding "{{delete}}" to the pages. --Yair rand (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

And then anyone will delete them?--Zoologo 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there's a valid reason to, yes! Have you created some invalid entries? What are they? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi thanks for answer. I created a lot of words which are invalid 'cause they're dialectal and badly written

--Zoologo 15:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regionalisms are fine, we have English regionalisms and for other languages. scn:ajeri and it:ajeri indicate that this spelling is valid - what problem do you have with it? Does it not exist? Your definition of 'yesterday' is not poorly formatted. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes I know, but these Sicilian words are uncorrect 'cause Sicilian language has a own rules of writing, how shown in Sicilian wiktionary, where there is the paragraph "Lingua siciliana standard", which displays the right way to write the word. In sicilian wiktionary we add all the variants for pleasure, how you can ask at this user Sarvaturi, an admin in that. Regarding the italian wiktionary, they take all the word from the sicilian one, without discharge if are correct or less. So please help me thanks :) --Zoologo 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See Category:Nonstandard, 661 entries and 18 subcategories. What do you mean by 'Sicilian language has a own rules of writing'. Who produces these rules? Remember an official body is only official according to itself. If these words are used in Sicilian texts, they should be kept according to WT:CFI line one, "all words in all languages". Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, exists a sicilian grammar based on this http://scn.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Cumpenniu_stil%C3%ACsticu because the sicilian language has an own literary tradition. The words which i wanna delete aren't just a Nonstandard, but are real errors. It's like to add "weend" instead of "wind" or "suxes" for "success". I hope i was helpful :) --Zoologo 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I notice some of these words (all but 'rruspigghiari) begin with a quotation mark (‘). Aren't these supposed to be apostrophes (')? --JorisvS 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes it'd be an apostrophe but it's, however, a wrong written word which would be deleted. --Zoologo 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just don't think I can delete these 'in good faith', especially whilst the Sicilian Wiktionary has entries for them. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll tell you what Sarvaturi told me about my entries

" Non mi ricordo se te l'ho detto: la fondazione Wikimedia ci ha dato il consenso per creare i progetti di wikipedia e wikizionario in siciliano, ma la loro condizione è che dobbiamo scrivere in "siciliano letterario". Allora noi, utenti della wikipedia siciliana, abbiamo scritto un compendio (a partire delle forme usate dai letterati, etimologisti, scrittori siciliani): http://scn.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Cumpenniu_stilìsticu "

translated:

" I don't rememeber if i told you: Wikimedia foundation agreed to create wikipedia and wiktionary in sicilian language, but their condition is that we have to write in "literary sicilian". So we, users of sicilian wikipedia, wrote a summary (beginning from forms used by literary men, etymologist and sicilian writer) http://scn.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Cumpenniu_stilìsticu "

I already told that the standard way to write a sicilian word is written in sicilian wiktionary at the paragraph "lingua siciliana standard". If you don't believe me, you could ask at this user Afc0703 who knows about it. Write soon --Zoologo 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps true, but this isn't the Sicilian Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please could you have a look at the discussion at User_talk:Maro#socjalizm, which is related to this edit ; the whole point in this discussion is because the etymology of socjalizm does not match the descendants of socialis. Caladon 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My point was really that none of the socialism variants are directly from this (or are they?) but from social +‎ -ism or from another language, either French or Renaissance/New Latin, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You recently changed the "requests for autoformat" category to say that it was being dealt-with by KassadBot. However, recent activity by this bot (see teile as an example) shows that it is actually creating such work, not removing it. What are we to do? SemperBlotto 11:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Erm, nothing? It is dealt with by KassadBot, but KassadBot is still doing German verb forms too, using a simpler script to your own. Hence it tags entries and when Prince Kassad swaps to the other script, it cleans them up itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thought PK stopped running AF as of February 28. See the discussion at ], in particular PK's comment of 16:57 of that date.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you saw my reply on my talk page, but in case you didn't, I did what I could for 奈落 and I hope it looks better now. Thanks for asking me to help, I appreciate the vote of confidence and I would like to help out as much as possible. It seemed that about 3/5 or 4/5 of the definitions were redundant or just wrong, so I had to make some major changes there, and the derived term was impossible to verify. There is probably room for improvement--I know that 奈落の底 is a common term, for example--but I think it's passable for now. Haplology 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, your vector.js switches defn to rfdef, but note that {{defn|Han}} categorizes in a special category that {{rfdef|Han}} does not. I suppose defn can be modified to also so categorize, but unless/until that takes place, you might want to avoid that switch when Han is the first parameter.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I spotted this earlier. Thanks for reminding me, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So added to {{rfdef}} - note this doesn't mean that {{defn}} has to be deleted, just that one can be exchanged for the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your deletion is making my life and everyone else's very difficult here. I need to put a Wiktionary tag to link to the Glossary. You know how that looks on Wikipedia? Right now it says, "Look up Surf slang in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." You want it to say "Look up Appendix:Glossary of surfing in Wiktionary, the free dictionary."? Not very smooth. Anarchangel 20:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes I do know how to change it on Wikipedia; tell me what the entry title as and I can do it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

-edit conflict-You gave no rationale for the deletion. My creation, on the other hand, does have a rationale: Wiktionary:Redirections: "The rule-of-thumb is that content should never be replaced by a redirect; redirects can be replaced with real entries at any time." In other words, Surfing slang is a good redirect until a Surfing slang article is created.

Furthermore, your deletion is making my life on Wikipedia, and potentially that of other WP users, more difficult. I need to put a Wiktionary tag to link to the Glossary. You know how that looks on Wikipedia? Right now it says, "Look up Surf slang in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." You want it to say "Look up Appendix:Glossary of surfing in Wiktionary, the free dictionary."? Not very smooth. ::Teach me to fish, please. I don't need a handout. Besides, I am in the middle of the edit; the Wiktionary box is not up yet. I tried piping it; that just makes another entry. Anarchangel 20:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, I finished the edit. It is Wikipedia:Surf culture. Anarchangel 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

w:Template:wiktionary isn't it? It should have its own documentation. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{Wiktionary pipe|actual link|displayed term}} Thanks, I'm a good mule, I just need a little kick now and again. Anarchangel 21:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

To whom it may concern:
I tried to add (coin??) words to wiktionary ("refinity" & "definity") for a concept that has no corresponding term in dictionaries or google searches. These words are nouns that relate to optimal "refinedness" or "defineness" of search concepts, not to simple degrees of refinement or definement. They refer to meeting optimal requirements for particular searches -- whether in a database or the entire internet. I have been working on a database that requires a minimum of filters to retrieve appropriate records, but the narrowness -- hence exactitude -- of the results depends on numbers of multi-field (multi-attribute) specs. The more varied, increased, and cross-sectional the input, the more refined (precise/narrow) the output. "Refinedness" (already listed) relates to a quality (degree) of refinement, not to an exact, optimal refinement – at least within my search-engine environment.
Perhaps there is a term for this concept that I don't know about. Otherwise, it seems appropriate to coin the term(s), because it appears to be a concept that is almost self-evident in doing searches, but is simply lacking in corresponding vernacular. When my database is used, the concept is required in order to get exacting outcomes, not extraneous ones. Scott Nelson 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Scott NelsonScott Nelson 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Simple answer is no, see protologism and WT:LOP. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it must be suspicious that the first edits of a new user are to include the delete template, I know. It's just that I clicked in the random page and the first thing that came along was a verb form that doesn't exist... For what it's worth, I'm a veteran user in the Spanish Wikipedia. Neviscar is a verbo impersonal propio, that means that it can only be conjugated in its third form, as you can see here. I have to add that link is to the "association" that rules the Spanish language. Other examples of this kind of verbs are llover (rain), nevar (snow), etc. Regards, Gons 12:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC).Reply

They don't seem to qualify for speedy deletion; I've consulted one of our best Spanish editors and it looks like they will be deleted, we just want to make sure first that we're not deleting entries that are later shown to be valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi MG: I am rather new to this, so I appreciate you making corrections to my first definition. I have 3 questions and don't know where to look. Could you help? (1) how do you show a noun has no plural? (2) Should the adjective form be added as a separate entry? (3) I found the word philautic in Jung, and when I Googled it all I found were blogers who were reading the same passage. Should the quote be put in as an example of usage? Cathbhadh III 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well if that's your first entry it's a very good effort - Wiktionary syntax is anything but simple. So

1. See {{en-noun/doc}}. The usual one is - for uncountable, but there are ? for uncertain plural and ! for plural not attested
2. If you mean the adjective philautic then yes, that's why I moved it to related terms
3. If philautic is used in a well-know work, then it would meet WT:CFI#Attestation. If not, we'd need three independent citations of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I am going to assume that Jung's Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious makes it because I'm really enjoying it. Cathbhadh III 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tell me, do you support your replacing of {{ttbc|French}} with {{ttbc|fr}}? If so, on what principle? --Dan Polansky 06:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the principle we try and use language codes, not names, inside templates. It's a question of standardization. So yes, I do support it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The statement "we try and use language codes, not names, inside templates" does not seem to be true. Can you tell me how have you arrived at the statement and who does "we" refer to? (The vote "Wiktionary:Votes/2010-09/Language codes in templates" has resulted in 6:5, with one abstainer (me) saying "I can no longer confirm that {{ttbc|French}} as compared {{ttbc|fr}} harms anything: this particular template sits nicely along with the non-templated "French" in translation tables." Before your mass replacement, {{ttbc|French}} was an overwhelmingly prevalent practice. So again, where does the statement follow from?

Another question: do you agree with this principle: "Mglovesfun should feel free to perform mass changes in the mainspace after a vote that proposed these changes has resulted in 6:5 in support"? --Dan Polansky 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I could answer, but frankly I don't give a rat's ass what you think. Now go away and let me do some dictionary-related things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Just don't answer and behave like a dictator who is not answerable to anyone and anything. --Dan Polansky 12:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it is quite simple. The changes have been done by your bot User:MglovesfunBot in December 2010; here an example edit: diff. Can you show me the vote in which your bot was authorized to perform these changes? --Dan Polansky 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Votes aren't needed for every edit. Which vote allows you to post on my talk page? If you're gonna be a stickler for the rules you have to live by the sword and die by the sort. The problem is, the things you bring up (such as on Prince Kassad's talk page) aren't against any rules. While you're free to object to them, the people involved are also free to do nothing about it. See also User talk:SemperBlotto. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there is WT:BOT, which happens to be a policy. It says such things as "I will ask around for consensus, perhaps at the Beer parlour, or I will make sure that the task is so innocuous that no one could possibly object."

I can post to your talk page by default, especially in order to bring up issues with your actions.

The comparison you have made to Prince Kassad is a non-starter: I have only indirectly asked him if he could adjust his bot, which he took rather personally. The issue that I bring here is what seems to me an inconsistency in your actions: you are really liberal with your own actions but rather formally opposing actions proposed by other people because of your minority arbitrary preference. --Dan Polansky 13:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've answered your question. You're not obligated to like my answer. But I am asking you to stop so I can do some dictionary work. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are not obligated to answer. You are not even obligated to avoid behaving like a free-wheeling dictator, as there is no vote that forbids that, right? Fact is, you have broken the promise that WT:BOT is biding you by: "I will ask around for consensus, perhaps at the Beer parlour, or I will make sure that the task is so innocuous that no one could possibly object." Can you demonstrate the required consensus or that the task is such that no one could possibly object? Have you at least mentioned the plan to run the bot in this way in Beer parlour before you have started the bot? --Dan Polansky 13:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're not obligated to make wild accusations for your own personal satisfaction. Oh and yes, User:MglovesfunBot/Tasks which exists solely for the purpose of informing people what the bot will do next. Not my fault if people don't read it. Perhaps they do. How can you possibly know that? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now you must be kidding. I am not monitorig User:MglovesfunBot/Tasks, and I am not planning to do so. You are not entitled to open up yet another Beer parlour which people have to monitor. Have you posted a notification to BP or not? --Dan Polansky 13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"I will ask around for consensus, perhaps at the Beer parlour" so not necessarily the beer parlour. Like I say, not up to me what people do and don't read. Sorry about that. Now stop. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so you are saying that it is User:MglovesfunBot/Tasks where you have asked for consensus, right? Am I right that you have posted no notification to BP? Re: "not up to me what people do and don't read": again, you don't possibly mean this seriously; this is not an answer that anyone could make in earnest. --Dan Polansky 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

But there is another bent: Let us now suppose for the sake of discussion the absurd assumption that MglovesfunBot/Tasks was the place in which you have "asked for consensus". How did it go? Did people confirm on that page that they agree? --Dan Polansky 13:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because you're just being silly, there's no reason for me to treat this as serious. Converting {{ttbc|French}} to {{ttbc|fr}} when the template allows it isn't "dictatorial". You should perhaps watch news coverage of the Middle East; you'd be surprised.

Also #6 states "I will un-do (perhaps with the same or another bot) any and all damage inadvertently caused by my bot, and any edits which consensus decides were unwanted."

This of course isn't the case. See also Template talk:ttbc where the original modification was proposed and not opposed at all. Again, I cannot be responsible for what you do and do not read. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh furthermore, WT:BOT doesn't say what happens if you don't follow the promises - so even if I have broken a promise, WT:BOT doesn't recommend any course of action. Like I say, live by the sword, die by the sword. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have unjustly blocked me for one day. That did not prevent you from responding to a person whom you have blocked. I ask you to unblock me so that I can asnwer. --Dan Polansky --193.200.150.82 14:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually tempted to block you for longer for "intimidating behavior/harassment". That's my main regret. I'm just hoping to avoid it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re "Furthermore I think you should get a further block for abusing multiple accounts; I find it highly hypocritical to complain on user's talk pages about not following Wiktionary policy, but breaking said policies when it suits you. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC):

Can you point me to the said policy that shows that I am highly hypocritical?

Disclaimer: If you want to block me for posting to your talk page, please say "stop posting or I will block you" or something of the sort, and I will give in. --Dan Polansky 08:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping you'd just have a bit more common sense and decency than that. I'm not calling you hypocritcal because of any policy, it's my opinion. NB I don't think "abusing multiple accounts" is in any policy we have; it's in our drop down list of blocking reasons.

Anyway, I'm not saying not to post on my talk page, just in this instance I was busy and wanted to get on with a job. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you find this utterance accurate: "... breaking said policies when it suits you"? Which policies have I broken? Are there any policies that I have broken or do you agree that you know of no policies that I have broken?

The disclaimer still applies: I will immediately give in to "stop posting or I will block you" and the likes. --Dan Polansky 11:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed this on the Beer Parlor, let's not duplicate that here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have not answered this question in BP: is this accurate or not:? "... breaking said policies when it suits you".

I will immediately give in to "stop posting to my talk page or I will block you" and the likes. --Dan Polansky 12:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was "NB I don't think "abusing multiple accounts" is in any policy we have; it's in our drop down list of blocking reasons." --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So do you accept that your statement was an error or not?

Yes. I assumed I didn't actually need to say this as it's plainly obvious. But apparently I was wrong about that too. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So are you sorry for having me falsely accused and having threatened me with a further block? --Dan Polansky 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, not really. Because it's not a matter of policy, we don't have any policy on the issue. If you'd have just been civil and just stopped when I asked this would never have happened. You can talk about Wiktionary policy and non-policy all you like, we're still human beings. And this is still a dictionary website. Any chance we could do some editing rather than bickering? See also my Beer Parlor reply. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know, if you want to stop talking to me, it is your business to stop or threaten me with a block, not mine. You are not entitled to having the last word in a conversation.

I will immediately give in to "stop posting to my talk page or I will block you" and the likes. --Dan Polansky 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will immediately give in to "stop posting to my talk page or I will block you" and the likes. --Dan Polansky 12:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe that we inherit the scokpuppet policy from w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - seems OK. SemperBlotto 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

How do we inherit a WP policy? You, SempterBlotto, are the first to eagerly claim that "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia". --Dan Polansky 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let us, for the sake of discussion, accept w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as Wiktionary policy. Which sentence or section have I broken? --Dan Polansky 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any chance we could discuss this elsewhere, since I'm not even involved in this part of the conversation. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This diff looks bad. --LA2 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a bad edit summary, per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Treatment of toneless pinyin other than syllables I removed, well, the toneless pinyin other than syllables. The edit, I believe, is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh and it wasn't regex, just manual. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You removed most of the ==Mandarin== section, including its heading! There's now a Pinyin subheading in the Italian section. --LA2 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it correct that this much should differ between February and now? --LA2 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well the Italian wasn't me, the rest was. It does seem that all the pinyin entries were bad entry titles for bēi and bèi, so yes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Like in this edit- I don't see a problem with this for Macedonian, but if you wanted to do this for more languages, there are some where it could be a problem where it would be more useful to show 'principle parts'. — Laurent — 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This did cross my mind; I added it as entries were already displaying plurals and I didn't want to remove them entirely, could be considered bad form to do that. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure at some point we'll have a fluent Macedonian editor who we can teach to use pretty tables and whatnot :D Macedonian's one of those ones with enough forms to be worth the table. — Laurent — 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mate, I was about to roll you back on this, but it looks like CodeCat already did it. It's pretty well established to include close cognates in an Etymology section, as long as there's not thousands of them, I don't see the problem..? Ƿidsiþ 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Oh, no -- it was me! My computer's being weird. Ƿidsiþ 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

That was a pretty marginal one, I agree. WT:ETY does mention it at the top (and I didn't write that bit). But yes, given the not very long etymology, seems ok to have cognates. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought the reason we do this for Old English is we expect people not to give a shit what the word means, but only care about the etymology. Which is conversely why we don't do it for other languages, as we expect people want to know what the word means more than the etymology. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems that your latest edits have somehow changed the functionality of the template when used with mf gender parameter. The template now behaves very differently than specified on the documentation page. Could you please update the documentation accordingly or fix your changes? Matthias Buchmeier 11:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. :) On 12 March, you reverted me here without explanation. While I appreciate that I may have done something wrong, I'm likely to continue to do it wrong, I think, unless somebody tells me why. Can you explain? It seems very inefficient, when one is trying to find the meaning of a word, that none of the links on the page provide it. Is there a reason that Wiktionary prefers that its users must click through multiple pages before addressing that very basic function? --Moonriddengirl 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bit of a weird one actually; it makes sense to link the -z- spelling to another -z- spelling, but it also makes sense, as you say, to skip a step and link directly to the page with the definitions. So no, you haven't done anything wrong. Perhaps {{alternative spelling of|immortalisation}} would be the best? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I may know my way around Wikipedia quite well, but I'm a bit lost here. Would that be an alternative to the text that's currently on the page or added to the text that's on the page? I try not to break things while trying to figure things out. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think we should make a global change to all such words, such that immortalize is the base entry, and immortalise is the alternative spelling. -ize is much more common on the East side of the pond than it used to be. SemperBlotto 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always done it that way, as a sort of 'peace-making' solution. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Pardon, was my request inappropriate? That page looked like spam. 75.142.190.21 11:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No not spam; "see my Wikipedia page" is one of the most common user page contents. Let's not start deleting user pages that don't violate WT:USER in any way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ I apologize. I assumed user pages with no informative or useful content were to be deleted. 75.142.190.21 11:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello you keep considering my change on this page vandalism, which is unreasonable. There are two different words with different etymologies; "gutteral" is from English gutter (originally Anglo-Norman "gotere"), "guttural" is from Latin guttur. I will not fight if you keep reverting the change back, however understand that your position is wrong. Aeranlaes 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Evidence of an adjective meaning 'relating to gutters'? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any: I've just looked. However, we are missing a sense of guttural, which I've just added as {{rfdef}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mglovesfun,

I am intrigued. You deleted my page so quickly, so thoroughly, and with a kind of zest for life. It appears that you are a wikipedia dictionary expert, and I am a person who would like to create a page. I will do whatever is necessary, but I need your help in establishing this page.

I would be very interested in having a discussion with you about this. Please join my Discussion page, on Aaron Nordquist's user page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Aaron_Nordquist/Resolutionism" Thank You, Aaron174.5.78.111 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does it exist in English? If it does, not worth restoring the page, would be quicker to start from scratch. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ I am sorry that I removed contractions from your writing without consent. Pilcrow 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are tossing out important information in these articles. Arabic transcriptions cannot be known from the Arabic spelling and only someone who knows the plural forms is able to write the Roman transliterations. It is unlikely that anyone will ever add that information on most of these words, so when you delete the plural transliterations, that information is lost and effectively unrecoverable. The proper noun template is broken, the transcription is missing altogether. Also, many Arabic nouns as well as adjectives have multiple plurals, and not every plural has been added to every word, so the templates must permit many plurals as well as the transliterations of the plurals. I don’t see how you will be able to improve on the infl template which already allows these things. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I won't? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I think I've just worked this out. I've been working on the Arabic entries without categories, so obviously, these don't use infl in the first place. If they did, they wouldn't be uncategorized. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right about {{infl}}, and I'm not disputing that, which is why I'm a bit confused; not that some French entries use {{infl|fr|noun}} for various reasons, such as uncertain plurals. I'm not anti-infl; language specific-templates are good, especially for non-Latin scripts as it allows us to catch which entries lack transliteration. For example {{infl|ar|noun}} won't show up Arabic entries lacking gender or lacking transliteration. This is broadly, or very broadly in reaction to WT:BP where CodeCat complains that transliterations aren't prominent enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, very old entries, and possibly newer entries from new editors, may still not have any inflection-line templates, but it is important not to lose any of the information (especially plurals and their transcriptions) when adding a template. We use a special template for verbs ({{ar-verb}}), but it is probably best to use infl for nouns and adjectives. If a gender or a transliteration is missing, somebody can request them and we answer the request promptly. Gender tends not to be a problem with Arabic and people who are trying to create an Arabic sentence usually do not have a problem with that. With Arabic, the problems are the transcription and the plurals (and the many verb forms, but we have not gotten to that yet).

There are other, though related, difficulties with Arabic terms for which we still have not found a good solution (such as the fact that some of the plurals only go with certain parts of the definitions), and the question of the many verb stem forms. I think the new ar-noun template, because it is so restrictive, is only going to lead to problems. If anyone wants to add dual or plural forms, they will have to float them wherever they think they might fit, or they could just give up and not add them at all. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I tend to think all Arabic nouns should have gender, irrespective of whether someone requests a gender or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It comes down to priorities. By far the most important thing for nouns are the plural forms and the transcriptions. Gender comes in a distant third behind those two. The vast majority of Arabic nouns have predictable gender, which is why gender receives so little attention in Arabic dictionaries and grammars. It’s always nice to have genders marked for each noun, but it is not critical for the users, whereas the transcriptions and the plural forms are critically important. It is nothing at all like the situation with French or Spanish. So if it is a matter of choosing between tossing out plural forms and the transcriptions of plural forms versus the automatic flagging of missing gender and transcriptions, it is preferable to preserve the plurals and their transcriptions and use manual requests for the occasionally absent gender. These requests are handled quickly. If the plurals and their transcriptions are removed, we usually won’t go in and add them a second time, even if there are requests. If the plurals and transcriptions are dropped, Arabic contributions will dry up completely. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh I love infl I think it's genius, perhaps the best written template on the whole Wiktionary. But it is a trade-off; if you want flexibility, it's infl. If you want automatic script support, plural support, gender support, it's a language specific template. Ideally {{infl|ar|noun}} would automatically categorize in Category:Arabic nouns lacking gender and Category:Arabic terms lacking transliteration. But it doesn't; therein lies the dilemma. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Montaigne, discussing sex in ancient Rome, says Ils s'essuyoient le catze de laine perfumée, quand ils en avoyent faict. "They washed their catze with perfumed wool when they'd done it." I don't recognise the word; do you know it? See also privity, sense 4. Ƿidsiþ 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, might be able to find it online, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I might go into Leeds Uni for lunch and look it up while I'm there, the Godefroy doesn't have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a good MF dictionary myself. I feel this should be a couple of spelling changes away from a modern word, but I just can't see it... Ƿidsiþ 11:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Euphemised for of chatte maybe, that's the only thing I can think of. Perhaps from German Katze. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Edmond Huguet: Dictionnaire de la langue française du seizième siècle has it as m membre virile. It has the Montaigne example and another example which I didn't copy down as I forget pen and paper. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good work. I wish I knew where it came from. Ƿidsiþ 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It said "see cas, page 115, column 1" but frankly I couldn't be bothered. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, I see that one of the meanings for cas is given in the Trésor as "genitals". A strange spelling though -- I see quas and calz in older texts, but not catze. Anyway. Thanks. Ƿidsiþ 10:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, MG.

Sorry. I was in the process of "cleaning" up when I noticed my mistake: there are two cats, one for subcats and another for pages, so this category still makes sense. I reverted my latest edits. You were too quick deleting that cat though :). Malafaya 16:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I applied for the bot flag (Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-04/User:Flubot for bot status#User:Flubot for bot status) so that I can move Romanian entries from cedillas to commas without flooding Recent Changes. If yoy have any comments on my application and/or the tools I'm going to use, I would appreciate it a lot. --flyax 13:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun,

Why did you revert my change? Look at the pt.wiktionary.org and you will notice, that there is no entry about the "multimedia card". Bye --Yoursmile 15:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite simply it doesn't matter. Our interwikis are done by bots from one identical page name to another, including redirects. So, a bot would delete this interwiki if pt:MMC was deleted. The content of the pages is irrelevant; bot don't check for content. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thats nonsensical, but thanks for your answer. Salute --Yoursmile 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not nonsensical — on en.Wiktionary, as on de.Wiktionary, the interwiki links are merely links between same-titled pages on different wikis. It is only on Wikipedia that the content (subject matter) has to match, and on Wikipedia, the page titles don't have to match. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. But the pt article isn't same-titled. There is a difference between MMC and m.m.c. ;-) So long --Yoursmile 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

See above. Or don't, your choice really. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be helpful if you would try not to make comments like this one... --Yair rand 01:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it's best to ignore him. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll be regenerating User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections later today, so you might want to hold off on any further fixing. (Sorry, I didn't notice the new dump until now.)

—Ruakh_TALK 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll be turning of the computer in about 20 minutes anyway. I don't particularly mind removing some one's I've already done; basically it can't be helped. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Two days later, on reflection, might be better to wait for the next dump; how often are they? And where? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Hullo sir. May I please know why “cyclopædia” was deleted? --Pilcrow 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It redirected (believe it or not) to encyclopedia. It may well be valid, I didn't check. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Sir, do you think that “pæninsulae” is a valid spelling? Surely -ae would be ligated if other spellings also contained ligatures, no? --Pilcrow 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was debating with myself after I reverted whether you'd bring this up at all, the reasons being

1. Doesn't matter whether I think it's valid. I can't delete it based on fanciful guesswork, and:
2. It brings up your use of the {{d}} template on entries that could be valid. Please don't, use {{rfd}}, {{rfv}} or {{rfc}} (or the Tea room). Delete is reserved for patently wrong/invalid entries.

Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you said "I think Mglovesfun believes I am not intelligent". I'm not sure how that relates to anything said here. It's about giving entries due process. FWIW looks like it might fail anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

In particular, the singular doesn't seem to be attested in English either; not on Google Books anyway. Since Google Groups and News will be non-starters, you'd need three citations from other sources. In other words, if I'm going to speedy delete the plural, I should speedy delete the singular too. Pæninsulæ is also unattested. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ It is perfectly acceptable for administrators to not bother elaborating on their view‐points: it is probably too tiresome to explain why such entries are somehow not “patently wrong”, and I certainly do not need to explain it myself, since my opinions are worthless and trivial compared to yours. Regardless, I have not found any good citations for “pæninsula”, and I do not care anymore. --Pilcrow 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have you even looked at WT:CFI#Attestation? —Ruakh_TALK 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Attestability and etymological correctness are two separate issues. NB pæninsula isn't attestable on Google Books, but has been cited anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete this? Its real! Google it — This unsigned comment was added by 128.252.17.111 (talk) at 07/April/2011.

¶ I advise against præsenting your propositions in such a doubtless manner. More‐so it is inappropriate to not provide your citations. --Pilcrow 22:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

link

Well it looks bogus, per Pilcrow, do you have any citations? As opposed to an unhelpful Google Search. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hm, actually, I am seeing three cites for it (, , ), though "on which side do you dress" or"which side do you dress on" seems to be more common.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Third one seems ok; I can't see the second at all and the first doesn't really "convey meaning". But, does it exist? --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Strange as it may seem, this is for real. Bespoke tailors adjust the fit of made-to-measure trousers depending on which side the wedding tackle likes to hang. It doesn't seem to matter with jeans. SemperBlotto 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was about to add the sense to the verb dress, but we already have it (sense 4). SemperBlotto 13:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for deleting my userpage. The subpages must also deleted. Can you also delete? A list of the subpage see here --Labant 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, tomorrow if someone hasn't done it. Just gone midnight here in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks --Labant 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - all deleted. Feel free to make real contributions to the project. SemperBlotto 06:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a new page with which I have several issues, and I'm not sure what the best course of action is with regard to it. It's 見えない and the definition is accurate in one way--見えない is used to describe invisible things. 見えない人 would translate to "invisible person," for example. However, the POS is wrong: 見えない is a verb, not a noun. It is missing a meaning, namely "seem to be." The readings are wrong--it's みえない/mienai, not みるえない/miruenai, which is simply not a word in Japanese. It elicits laughter--I tried it last night. The literal meaning is closer to 'you cannot see it' or 'it is not visible', which is so close to 'invisible' that I doubt it even belongs in the first place. The literal meaning on there, 'it is not seen', corresponds to 見ない or 見ていない, which is a different word--見る as opposed to 見える. It is a significant difference.

The same author has shown a pattern of making pages like this one. To his or her credit however, in this case apparently you can use 見えない to describe invisible things in the context of magic, like "invisible cloak," but on the other hand you can use it with pretty much anything.

I'm not sure what to do this page though because 見えない is a conjugation of 見える/みえる/mieru, so I don't know if it justifies its own page or belongs somewhere in 見える. There are a few other pages with Japanese terms like that--just conjugations of a verb, like 行きます, or adverbial forms of -na adjectives. Those are systematically derived from the, well, dictionary forms of the words, and on any other dictionary they would be under the main entry. I don't know if those pages belong here or not, or how to format them. Making a separate page for each conjugation would require an enormous amount of work, but I suppose a bot could do it.

Sorry to bother you about this. Frankly I find 見えない distressing and I would like to deal with it immediately, but I'm not sure what to do. Thanks. Haplology 10:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you'd be apologizing. Anyway, I (obviously) don't know any Japanese. I knew his/her formatting was bad, I didn't also know the entries contained false information. The English definition here is well inadequate as it gives a host of incompatible meanings on one line. Could it therefore translate as verb - to seem invisible? Anyway the user doesn't seem to respond to his/her talk page. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have contributed to the ASL Wiktionary entires in the past, but the organization appeared complicated. For the last year there hasn't been any activity.

I feel it is because sign languages don't have an orthography. There are ways to describe the positions and movements, but no two people would make the same description. When looking through various ASL dictionaries, they don't describe the words in the same way.

I was wondering what your take on this issue might be. On the one hand, I could make different-named entries for the same words. On the other, most people who know ASL wouldn't be able to understand the terse descriptions used. Therefore they couldn't tell if the word has already been created. -- PositiveSigner 12:23 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing particular useful I can add. My personal feeling is these should be appendices like Appendix:Unsupported titles. Any language without a written format could be seen as 'unsupported'. As for how to format these and make them findable, I think that's another strength of an appendix (or several appendices) is the template {{subpages}}, as seen on my own user page as of now, automatically displays all subpages, meaning there's no need to have a bot create and update a list of these. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have a "sign gloss" namespace which was created for two purposes: (1) If someone wants to add a SL entry and doesn't know the correct page title to put it under, he can put it in the "sign gloss" namespace with the gloss of the sign used as the page title. (For example, a sign whose gloss is "CRAZY" can be put at ].) Someone who can name the page correctly should then move it to the correct entry in the main namespace. (2) For redirects to the SL entries in the main namespace (so that, for example, ] can redirect to ]).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What terms of Category:Importance are not related to importance? --Daniel. 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It can't use topic cat as it's a non-topical category; it's a category for synonyms and related and unrelated terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unimportant is of course, an antonym, roughly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unimportant is not an antonym of importance, because one is an adjective and the other is a noun. Unimportant means "not important", which is a value of importance. Similarly, Category:Hygiene contains "dirty". --Daniel. 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to know what to make of you. I think at best you're opinions are quite different from most editors, at worst you're quite like Wonderfool where your 'vandalism' is quite subtle and therefore hard to delete on sight. Perhaps after we've all quit editing Wiktionary, people will see you like a visionary, someone who was ahead of this time. --Mglovesfun (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. The second sentence of your last message is untrue. --Daniel. 07:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well you're obviously gonna say that. Like I say, I can't tell what you're intending to do. To deliberately take Wiktionary down a new road, perhaps, or vandalize it in a sneaky, well-disguised way. It's not to keep going with the status quo, that's for sure. Or if it is, you're bad at it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, well. The 3rd and 4th sentences of your last message may be true, and this fact does not contradict anything that I said in this thread. --Daniel. 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see my talk page, where I've responded. In short: I really don't get where you're coming from on your complaint, and if you want, you can always record your own. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 06:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

For the IPA, I was gonna transcribe the audio file, but the audio file is very unrepresentative of how people say the word so I decided just to use a standard IPA. --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"User Mglovesfun (talk) deleted this entry after you started editing with reason:

   No usable content given: --explanation of deletion-- "

Your explanation might be due to the Wiki problems which intermittently prevented previewing & updating. Otherwise, I feel I gave quite explicit content which would reasonably lead to a word entry, but might still warrant further discussion. If you still believe my discussion entry should be deleted rather than rebutted, could you at least offer me some constructive criticism.
Wikidity 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nah, you were just having a laugh. I even found it a bit insulting for our readers, saying "if you typed in origen, you probably meant to type in origin". If you have a serious point, put it on the talk page. If not, do nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Really no need to bite. A much more neutral reaction would have been to point at Help:Misspellings (which origen is for origin but probably not a sufficiently common misspelling) and to the fact that we distinguish uppercase and lowercase; Origen is a name indeed that may qualify for a (new) entry. There is no reason to believe Wikidity was making fun of anyone! -- Gauss 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bite what biting? Or is that a hypothetical comment only. I don't see that reaction as more neutral, just another possible reaction, which I'd see as less appropriate to the given material. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You really don't realize how needlessly arrogant your comment sounded? On what grounds, honestly, do you assume that newbie was making fun of anyone? If you make arguable decisions and get criticism you should deal with it in a more appropriate way - if you want to follow SB then also follow his example in ignoring criticism. It is often better to say nothing. (In this case, however, I felt it is necessary to say something. See, I'm an optimist.) -- Gauss 21:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't know you so I don't know how you interpret my comments. If you tell me, then I know. Regarding "do you assume that newbie was making fun of anyone?", no I don't assume that. I didn't say that and I don't think it. Again, is there some sort of relevance so what I've said above? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Renegade5005 23:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, as far as I know Icelandic is a dialect of Old Norse brought over by settlers from Norway. But then again I could be wrong. Please let me know if that is the case or not.Reply

Thanks

Wikipedia and ISO 639 (whence most of our language codes) classify this under {{non}}, Old Norse. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You might want to see Ruakh's update at ].​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I tried to use a template, but was told there was none for Low German Nouns or Low German meanings/translations/whatever it was.

Try this:

==Low Saxon==
===Noun===
{{infl|nds|noun}}

# ]

​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I left a message on your talk page (the IP's talk page) and didn't simply want to say the same thing here. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have answered your there. (I wasn't sure if you took my page on your watchlist.) --Paramecium 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Last November you removed the US/UK clarification of the spelling of whiskey/whisky - surely a help to the foreign user? —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

In theory at least, this isn't a US/UK thing, but rather whisky is Scottish and whiskey is Irish. In general, I suppose putting color, colour or favor, favour is ok, but on clicking one link, the entry explains about the British/American spelling issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I paraphrase my Websters: Whiskey ... also sp. whisky - in general US and Irish usage favors whiskey, Brit. and Cdn. usage favors whisky. And cOED: whisky (also US and Irish whiskey) —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I just read you comment again - I really think that since we are not strictly limited by space it is more helpful to users if we include the information you removed —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just looked back at the history of ουίσκι - my recent addition of US/UK was not an intended reversion of your November edit (which I hadnt notice) - if you dont mind I'll change it back :) —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oo a further note, I'd suggest that this Greek word is a phonetic rendering of the English, and should be in Category:el:English derivations. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Salut Martin,

Je tombe un peu par hasard sur l'étymologie de ce mot. J'avais bossé sur la version française. Je te charge d'être l'ambassadeur des fouilles étymologiques sur ce mot.

Cicéron le fait dériver de relego, ce qui en fait un équivalent sémantique de recueillement (recollection au sens religieux du terme).

C'est tardivement, chez les auteurs chrétiens (Lactance, saint Augustin) obsédés par l'alliance sacrée entre Dieu et les hommes que religio sera rattaché à religo.

Cela vaut le coup a minima de donner les deux étymologies possibles.

Amitiés, --Diligent 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quicky summary in English. Ciceron linked religio back to relego, and it's only afterwards that the word has been linked to religo. We should as a minimum give the two possibly etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why does User:Mglovesfun/vector.js have

txt=txt.replace(/\ (\ *)/g, " ");

? It seems a bit pointless, and I'm not sure it's always desirable. (I noticed it because this edit removed one of the two spaces after a colon in a quotation. It's not a big deal — the resulting HTML is the same either way — but unless there's a benefit to that line, I'd rather keep both spaces in the wikitext, since the book has a wide space there. Or maybe I should use   there, or some sort of Unicode whitespace character?) —Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's one of the things copied directly from User:Msh210/vector.js. I agree that it's rarely useful. Often it gets rid of double spaces after a full stop in etymologies, the rest of the time when the two spaces are an accident - a word being removed causing two consecutive spaces. This is the only case I can think of at all where removing the space wouldn't be desirable. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In case you were wondering why I'm not dealing with these:- as far as I can tell, when they are cleaned up they look exactly the same to our users i.e. it's only a Wiktionary problem, not a problem to our users. So I'm carrying on adding new words (Latin at the moment, but I shall be returning to Italian soonish). Feel free to tackle them yourself (leave any that might need clumsy Italian templates). SemperBlotto 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree, though often lack of categorization is accompanied by other problems. But in terms of usability, the only difference is no category on the bar at the bottom. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

See the Feedback entry. Perhaps you can throw some light on the subject. Cheers. SemperBlotto 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering how to use the sort parameter with Template:given_name. I tried using sort and skey but they still sort by kanji. (For example 美智子.) It's not a big deal but if the sort key field is ready to use, I'd like to go ahead and use it. Thanks Haplology 04:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite possible that I've made a mistake, I will review it. I suppose {{surname}} needs the same treatment. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply