User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/9

Hey there,

Just wanted to know why you have deleted Te Ao Māori, as I was simply try to move it from the English Wikipedia to Wiktionary. As it was mentioned on enwiki that it would be better to have the page on Wikitonary, did it need sources, because there are sources on the enwiki page?

Cody Cooper 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, is it English or Maori? It had a Maori header but an English category. Also, is it all lower case or not? Your definition wasn't really a definition, more of a 'ramble'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,I'm the autor of the page 'Montecchio'. I agree with U-too many error-but I think that U should agree with me it be a bit difficult to edit a page if it gets erased on work in progress.No problems,calm down-only a gentle request to respect the others' fatigue,particullary when this fatigue gets carried out in a language that is not his own... Greetings from Italy, --A.Bahn 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hiya Mglovesfun! I never heard back from you on my talk page about Foxtrot. Just wondering what your thoughts on my concern are. Hope all is well, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

O.K. I will Fix it if I can accesses the page THANKS Gigasolus 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might as well start from nothing. There's not enough good stuff there for me to restore it. Just start from scratch, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you just reverted that test edit I made. I suppose that's fair. But I don't really know how else to do it, so do you know? —CodeCat 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I noticed that it broke ideologies which doesn't use a code, as it's English by default. My tip would be to put an open request on the Beer Parlour, Nadando, Bequw or someone else could probably tell you. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please check the example for the second sense of that word ? It looks wrong to me, but then I'm not a native speaker... Thanks. Gougnafier 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that was nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hiya,

Re. Transwiki:Western names in Chinese

This was originally an English Wikipedia 'Article for Creation',

After it was declined, I suggested that the info could perhaps be used on wikt, so I asked several Wiktionarians, and they agreed, and advised me to tag it for transwiki, and indeed someone tagged it as such back in May.

I kept an eye on it, and a bot kept removing the transwiki tag; I spoke to the bot owner and sorted that out,

Then another editor removed the transwiki, which we discussed a bit on his/her talk page, .

After that, I kept checking it every so often, and as of now, nothing had happened, so I looked at the transwiki instructions myself, and was trying to follow them so that I could bring the page over, and perhaps re-format the entries appropriately for Wikt; I created the first entry, 阿博特 trying to use wikt style guidance etc; someone has made a few corrections which I've been studying, and hoped I might be able to create more from it, and also add cross-entries from the surname articles themselves to link to the Chinese version.

So...well, all I can say is, I'm trying my very best to bring over this information which was not deemed appropriate for English Wikipedia but as far as I can see from guidelines, is suitable here.

Let me know what to do, thanks, Chzz 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The procedure that I was following is Meta:Help:Transwiki. Chzz 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

See also User:Chzz/s1 for my attempt to work out how to filter the info into Wikt format. Chzz 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

To use Special:Import you need to be an administrator. Obviously, you weren't to know that. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I did know that, but the instructions say Unless you have import access, copy and paste the content to "transwiki:pagename" on the remote wiki. - so I did. I agree it is better to have the history on this wiki. It is, however, an 'odd' thing because it now shows contributions on this wiki for e.g. DeltaQuad (talk • contribs) and indeed EarwigBot (talk • contribs), who have actually never edited on Wiktionary. I suppose SUl with different usernames would be interesting too. Fortunately, almost all of that article was written by an IP editor, so I imagine that the actual intent of 'giving credit' is satisfied, in this specific case.

The article can, hopefully, be extracted and modified to suit Wiktionary; I've made a start on that, and I'm asking for further advice; I made 阿博特 - the first - and I've just added a link to that transwiki page, which hopefully helps attribution. Cheers, Chzz 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know it's currently at Transwiki:Western names in Chinese characters, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

why did you revert my edit? — lexicógrafo | háblame — 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You exchanged a good translation gloss for a bad one. It seemed like a POV edit to me. Whether it was is however irrelevant, for reasons I've just explained. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun, could you delete Eŭropa Union (which you created using the Acceleration tool yesterday), because the correct accusative form is Eŭropan Union. Thank you. --JorisvS 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Crap, yes, but note we don't have an entry for Eŭropa. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

And now we do;), at eŭropa (as it's only capitalized in proper names like Eŭropa Unio). --JorisvS 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about nederlanda/Nederlanda? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Derivations of proper names are usually written in all lower case (nederlanda, nederlandano, zamenhofa etc.), though, granted, it's not all that consistent; according to my grammar the following sentence can be found in the Fundamento: "Germanoj kaj francoj, kiuj loĝas en Rusujo, estas Rusujanoj, kvankam ili ne estas rusoj." And sometimes using an upper case might help clarify the meaning of a word; compare for example "Mi tre ŝatas Maltan bieron." ("Maltese") with "Mi tre ŝatas maltan bieron." ("malt") (example from my grammar book).

Fair enough, although your subpage may be of use for reference. It is very unfortunate that such translations for those languages are comparatively low unlike the most widely spoken ones. As for the babel you are referring to, I'll just stick with the modified banner version I created at this time but the language categories could be a bit useful however. NHJG (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is most definitely not an adjective. I believe it is includable because its literal meaning is "without a number", but its idiomatic meaning is "of a number so large it's not counted", which is definitely not obvious. (Аnd by the way, what's English equivalent of бб?)

Where have I made a translation with a capital letter that I shouldn't? Nikola 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

What if it's not an adjective, what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Russian has the same expression, без числа, and it's an adverb. --Vahag 14:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's an adverb, but I'll ask Millosh just to be sure. The corresponding adjective is безбројно, though it means only "of a number so large it's not counted" and not "not having a number assigned".

Another by the way, if there's an article about an abbreviation, shouldn't there always be a corresponding article about what is being abbreviated? For example, for example doesn't mean anything else but "for example". Nikola 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Serbian linguistics "bez broja" is "prepositional-case construction", which may have various functions, including adjectival and adverbial. --Millosh 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the particular case, it has adjectival function, but it is not an adjective. --Millosh 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

At the risk of stating the obvious, it'l be better if I let you guys sort it out. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments. I made certain corrections concerning the version of the word "macho" in Spanish already explained in the edit summary of the word "Macho" in English. Still, I consider necessary to include the explanation fo the word "macho" in Nāhuatl, since in my country, México, we understand the word in the context it is used, sometimes in Spanish, sometimes in Nāhuatl. Please, see "Machismo" in Wikipedia and help me to edit the article in the Wiktionary--Estaurofila 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'm not saying "don't include it", I'm saying "don't remove what's already there". Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here's my RFFF request. ~ heyzeuss 10:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you have a look there? I'd fix the headers, move the transl tables &c myself, only I'm fairly suspicious of the origin of the mess, apparently this edit - but what do I know? Thanks, --Thrissel 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused as to what you want me to do? Reverting (as a first step) seems fair if i realigns the definitions with the translation tables. I'm pretty sure they etymology is basically correct, I don't have any etymological sources other than online ones, and on my own brain. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought the etymology might be ultimately the same. Never mind, I'll fix the format. Thanks anyway, --Thrissel 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think they are, see exchequer. But like you say, 'ultimately' the same, I suppose checker comes from eschequier while check comes from eschec, though how that related to verifying, I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just realised I haven't done this one or #franchise above. Patience, my friends! Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done I see. Thanks again! --Thrissel 10:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin. This was poignant. :-(  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very poignant, some might say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I would like to know what did the argument "No usable content given" mean in the summary for deletion of this entry. All the best, --Biblbroks 09:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. It means the entry is not at a minimum standard to be accepted by Wiktionary. Furthermore, in this case, a drone strike is just a strike my a drone, so it would likely be deleted later on anyway. I think just about any administrator would delete the entry with these two points in mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

But the syntagma has one specific meaning which is different from the simple sum of the meanings of its parts. It's not even the sum of the first meanings, rather the combination of the third meaning for drone and fourth for strike. --Biblbroks 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem is, if I restore it I'll have to make something out of it, the nominate it for deletion. Essentially I'd be nominating my own entry for deletion, which is silly. And yes, if you know what a drone is and you know what a strike is, you know what a drone strike is. If another admin restores it and wikifies it, I won't speedily delete it, but I will nominate it for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I argue the reason for deletion, not the deletion itself. It's not correct that you necessarily know what a drone strike is when you know what a drone is and you know what a strike is. It's because you might use any of the combinations of meanings for drone and attack and then get e.g. work stoppage of an idler. Isn't it? --Biblbroks 14:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

But, Biblbroks, if you do not contest the deletion itself, then you deem your own entry worthy of deletion, do you not? If this is not the case, I can restore the entry and Mglovesfun could then take his chances by putting it on the Requests for deletion list. But such endeavour would convey some sense, only if the author had foreseen something other than deletion for his creation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't expressed my thought most fortunately. I meant that I didn't have the intention to contest deleter's ability to delete, neither wanted the deleter to restore the entry immediately, because I could have made it once again - and make it better if necessary. But because I didn't want to come into a dispute, first I tryed to give my objections for the way the deletion was done. It appeared somewhat hastily and without much consideration. So I specifically wanted to discuss the criteria for deletion of this entry. After reading WT:DELETE, I found that Mglovesfun could only have reasoned to "general rule is that anything that doesn't meet the criteria on Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is a candidate for deletion" and then to Wiktionary:CFI#Idiomaticity. But I'm still not certain about entry's no-usability since it has only one meaning of all the combinations for drone and strike. Where can I post my question about this - to WT:CFI? --Biblbroks 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I actually knew what you meant, I just didn't comment because my points above still stands. If another admin restores it, I will not speedy delete it but I will nominate it for regular deletion, and abide by that result no matter what it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Where is best for asking about idiomaticity of this particular case - or should I read whole Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion discussion? Perhaps it could help further clearing up the CFI. --Biblbroks 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

On the deletion debate, btw I don't think I would have speedy deleted it had it been formatted in the first place. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entry has been restored. Biblbroks, you may want to try to elaborate the entry, since Mglovesfun leans towards proposing it for deletion. I I have provided the entry with some basic formatting. Note that by undeleting it I do not consider it worthy of preservation (although I do not consider it worthy of deletion yet - my position on this issue is neutral). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

But if I don't add links of Hi wikit words the links of other languages won't be added to the respective Hi wikit words. 110.224.54.161 06:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't Interwicket (talk • contribs) run on the Hindi Wiktionary, then? Mglovesfun (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Thanks.
Ulmanor 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since you participated in the deletion discussion above, I thought I might like to hear some input from you regarding this one. Thanks. TeleComNasSprVen 12:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

As per http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Permissionless_Innovation&action=edit&redlink=1 you deleted the above entry. I had initially thought to enter it in Wikipedia but was pointed to Wikionary as perhaps a more apt location. You apparently say not so. Got another suggestion? FYI, the term is increasingly used in the debate on network neutrality. Tomlzz1

Well, I doubt it's capitalized; if so, why? If you can demonstrate that this is being used (that is, not your own invention) I'll restore it and wikify it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Granted on the capitalization.

See http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/02/permissionless-innovation-and-patents.html

See the next to last paragraph on http://www.openinternetcoalition.org/files/FCC_NN_Letter_Cerf.pdf

Tomlzz1

Isn't this just permissionless + innovation (an innovation without permission)? That's the second problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's more like freedom. When used at the recent IGF meeting in Vilnius, it was used to contrast the situation that existed when the phone companies ruled the earth, i.e., in the 90 years that AT&T ruled communications in the U.S. they added call waiting and voice mail, and with a gun to their head, FAX. Contrast that with the progress an Internet with permissionless innovation has enabled - projects like Google, Amazon, and Wiktionary... Tomlzz1

Restored. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Yesterday night I edited riflettere page but you reverted my changes.
Did I make any mistake with the wiki rules?
The page is missing the past historic forms of riflettere (with the meaning "mandare riflessi"). The forms currently listed are just for the think meaning. I checked the Garzanti Italian dictionary (conjugation table) and "Grammatica italiana" by Luca Serianni.
--Giuliopaci 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, we don't normally put the conjugation in with the definitions. Admittedly this is something of an unusual case. I'd imagine that ====Usage notes==== is the best header for this sort of thing. The problem is, if you start putting conjugation in with the definitions, people have trouble working out which is which. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I put it there just because I found the past participle there (that is where many dictionaries put this information). Riflettere follows two distinct conjugations one is regular (to think) and the other one is not. Probably it should be better to add two conjugations, but I don't know how to handle conjugations. The same applies for a few other verbs like inferire where "to infer" is regular, while "to hit" is not. What's your opinion? --Giuliopaci 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough Italian, but there's no reason not to put two conjugation templates next to each other, that's one of the advantages of having collapsible boxes. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Explain how it is a copyvio. Etymologies are common knowledge.

• http://www.myetymology.com/english/clutch.html
• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=clutch
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/clutch
• http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=clutch

(There are more, probably including ones from out-of-copyright dictionaries)

Or do you expect Wiktionary users to do their OR in order to find out etymologies ? - Francis Tyers 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was specifically referring to copying and pasting. You can see it a mile off, as we don't use ME and OE, we use {{etyl|enm}} and {{etyl|ang}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. Using ME/OE for Middle English/Old English is quite standard practice.
2. I pasted it while I went and looked at the syntax. If you really need an out of copyright source, the OE etymology is here: A CONCISE ANGLO-SAXON DICTIONARY and the ME etymology is here: A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MIDDLE-ENGLISH.
3. Feel free to revert me and go and add the "public domain" spellings. - Francis Tyers 11:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's quite standard outside of Wiktionary, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You fixed it yourself anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your friendly (and gentle!) welcome. I'll do my best to familiarise and inure myself to the conventions, tools and obstacles. The place is like a tarpit, both in terms of the variety and scope of the tools and requirements, and in terms of the lexicographer's nightmare: touch one word and an avalanche of other words collapses on you! Wish me luck! Jon JonRichfield 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was just looking at bless and saw the link to the above was deleted back in Feb. I couldn't see the reason. I was about to create the page as an alternative form for Old English blētsian. Leasnam 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entire content of the page was 'hello'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

oh, I see. ok, then I will re-create it. I just wanted to be sure this wasn't something I shouldn't be doing. Leasnam 04:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

lol, I see you've already beaten me to it! Cheers ;) Leasnam 04:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you seem to know the latest status of the use of {{topic cat}} and {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}}, judging from your recent edits to {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}}.

Can you give any input to Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Categories for derivation in All topics, and if needed correct any misunderstanding that I have created there?

The thing is, I am about to create more topic-cat-parents for derivation categories, as I write in Beer parlour. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't be drunk with power, this is not a Speedy, use an afd! WritersCramp 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nah I stand by that. BTW we don't have AFD, we have RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do we not have a template for phrasal verbs? Leasnam 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, we use the ===Verb=== header, but the Category:English phrasal verbs does exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking specifically in regards to an etymology template. I ran into a little problem when trying to add an etymology for carve up :). I think it would be nice to have one, similar to {{compound}}/{{blend}}/etc.. Mind if I try and create one? Leasnam 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

We tend to use the head parameter that templates have. You're free to create one, though, as of yet I'm unsure what it will do that using head= doesn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, it would do just a simple carve + up, or something to that effect. It would be a lot easier than doing it the long way for every phrasal verb. It's not necessary, I know. In reference to the head= , do you mean putting links into it for each component part? Leasnam 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I found this at {{infl|en|verb|phrasal verb|head=to ] ] ]}}. I think this would work. Leasnam 15:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can also use cat2=verbs (or better the other way around) as all these entries should be in the category:English verbs too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

awesome. Thank you! Leasnam 15:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Category:Gullah derivations seems to be wrongly placed to "]", as you can see from looking into that category. Can you fix {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}} so that the placement is correct? --Dan Polansky 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I am not really sure that it is {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}} that needs fixed. Some of the templates in the {{topic cat}} system needs to be fixed. --Dan Polansky 09:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Right now, you need to add lang=en, because the template uses {{#ifeq:{{{lang}}}|en }}. That could be fixed by using {{#if:{{{lang|}}}}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried to change {{#ifeq:{{{lang}}}|en into {{#ifeq:{{{lang|en}}}|en, but it did not seem to help, which leaves me puzzled. --Dan Polansky 11:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nah I'm thinking about how to do it. It needs to do the first set of parameters either when lang is not given, or when lang=en, and do the second set every other time. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have removed lang=en from Category:Gullah derivations, to make it a test category. --Dan Polansky 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's frustrating, as what I've done looks right, but doesn't work. Ruakh is the person I usually ask about templates, especially since Conrad.Irwin and Robert Ullmann are inactive right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed the template {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}}. The trouble was that Mediawiki distinguishes undefined parameters from empty paramters. Some of the calling templates passes lang not plainly but as {{{lang|}}}, so the poor {{topic cat parents/helper derivations}} gets lang empty instead of getting lang undefined. --Dan Polansky 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. Yes, there are some funny effects of that. Some templates will allow you to do {{foo|2=bar}} and some won't. I've tried that with {{en-verb}} when only one verb form is irregular, but it won't accept it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is right, though it could be better phrased. See Killer app. Equinox ◑ 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you remind me how to do a range block? 123abc is back and creating toneless pinyin entries. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiki has no rule to ban toneless Pinyin entries. 91.106.26.1 07:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary doesn't really have rules for anything, we work on community consensus. Community consensus is against toneless entries. Tooironic and Jamesjiao primarily, granted, but I've seen other comments on discussion pages too (notably a current RFD debate not started by either of them). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFD seems not to against toneless Pinyin but about sum-of-parts. BD2421's vote doesn't against toneless Pinyin also. In addition, user A-cai has made a lot of toneless Pinyin entries. 91.106.61.184 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that he (she) is back, but I know nothing about range blocks. Sorry about that. WT:GP is usually a good bet, that's where I would go. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, he shouldn't block me in a range block. A range block can also affect other users. 91.104.37.64 12:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes range blocks are the only way to get rid of persistent blocked users. --Felonia 12:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

But it is not a vandalism. 91.104.37.64 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mglovesfun.

This edit of mine is correct according to the latest decisions, is it not? Regards, Malafaya 22:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know there was a decision yet. I thought the vote was still ongoing. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just realised that some minutes ago. I was misled by the (your) edit on Category:Portuguese cardinal numerals of April 2010... Malafaya 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should create a topic cat parent for "Category:Slavic derivations". --Dan Polansky 08:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aye. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Related; WT:RFM#Category:Slavonic derivations. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

These words are useable especially in Chinese Mainland. Pinyin are usually without tone mark in practical usage. When I traveled in China, I seen toilet has written cesuo/weishengjian and the Chinese currency has written Zhongguo Renmin Yinhang. 91.104.63.133 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

More categories that you have switched to topic-cat need topic cat parent:

• Category:Proto-Athabascan derivations
• Category:Proto-Ngarda derivations

--Dan Polansky 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

They already did actually; yes, I'll look into it. Has my user subpage become obsolete already, then? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Athabascan also seems to be called Na-Dene, and for the life of me I can't find out what Ngarda is. The only page that links to it is also the only page in Category:Proto-Ngarda derivations. So I'm thinking it's maybe a mistake. A Wikipedia search ought to help. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to delete the categories together with the topic cat parents. I have created the topic cat parents only because the categories exist. I have no stakes in them. --Dan Polansky 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it seems that the Athabascan languages make up part of the Na-Dene languages, so it looks valid to me. Wikipedia has coverage of it, Ngarda seems to be unfindable. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

And Na-Dené in turn of Dené-Yeniseian. I think the "Ngarda" is supposed to refer to Ngardi. --JorisvS 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! Felonia's edits should be reviewed with special attention in my opinion since s/he has been creating lots of wrong entries and meanings (see his edits on intimer for example, lots of wrong plurals as well) Gougnafier 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

He's been blocked many times, he's well known to us. The thing is, he does a lot of good edits as well as some bad, so we generally don't keep blocking - especially as he seems to have an infinitive number of accounts. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

By placing derivation categories to broader language groups (such as in this edit to "Template:topic cat parents/Latin derivations"), you are removing them from the "Etymology" category, moving them deeper into the tree instead. One consequence is that Category:Latin derivations is no longer a direct child of Category:Etymology.

Are you sure this is what you want to achieve? Is there any clear benefit from creating a deeper structure like this?

Do you plan to carry this through for the derivation categories of all the languages, leading to Category:Etymology containing only a handful of main-branch subcategories such as Category:Indo-European derivations?

Is there a discussion where this has been proposed :p? --Dan Polansky 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad someone's finally replied to me on this matter. Well yes it was proposed on the Beer Parlor (but with what header, I'm no longer sure), the idea is that Category:Etymology is overfull, so to group by language categories essentially 'tidies it up' a bit. Of course Category:Latin derivations is no longer categorized directly in Category:Etymology, but it is in there as a subcategory. Basically, yes I'd like to do all the language following Category:Language families. I often talk about this with Prince Kassad on IRC. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do I understand it right that it is your initiative and decision to proceed in this way, approved by at least Prince Kassad? Are there other people who expressly encouraged you to go ahead with this?

This is a major shift from the previous practice. If it has been suggested in Beer parlour, then I would like to see the discussion; if you remember the month, you should be able to find it using the list of your contributions in "Wiktionary:" namespace, constrained by year and month. I do not remember that it would have been proposed in Beer parlour, but I probably forget many of the discussions. I only know of the recent section "Depth of etymological categories" from September 2010 created by you, of which I remeber that I did not understand what it was saying or whether it was proposing anything, so I ignored it as I was busy with cleaning up the "All topics" mess. The section "Depth of etymological categories" was posted as a subsection of a section created in Beer parlour for the cleanup effort. --Dan Polansky 12:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was the second such discussions, on how how deep to go, rather than on whether to split the category up. The discussion was either August or September, so I'm sure I can find it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That would be great if you could find it. Then again, is this your initiative? --Dan Polansky 12:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2010/August#Category:Etymology, sort of my initiative, though it's an absolute pain to create all the categories involved. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) Okay, so approved by  Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, CodeCat, and also by Prince Kassad if I understood you correctly. From rereading the August BP proposal now, it is far from clear to me what it means, and that its implication is that Category:Etymology is going to contain only a handful of categories rather than more than 600. It seems like worth being rerun through Beer parlour, although Beer parlour is a bit busy this week. Of course, the safest way would be to run this through a vote, which you have avoided lest there is no consensus or something :p. --Dan Polansky 12:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh I totally agree, it's just been hard to get as much input as I would like. To be honest, I think users look up words and phrases, they don't spend time browsing categories. So category structure is of more interest to editors that to readers. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Indo-European languages are done now. Not nearly as bad as I would have imagined. What's more the redlinked categories tend to contain only one or two entries, so they're pretty low on the list of wanted categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not concentrating as much as I should. It is quite different to Wp. Silent Billy 10:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's ok, it's a common problem that Wikipedia editors don't understand the differences here. You can only learn those with time. Have fun, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see; I did not know that you knew Felonia was Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I am not Wonderfool. --Felonia 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This one opens more cans of worms than I have the stamina to follow up! Webster seems to have included it, recently, on line, not in any hard copy I have access to, without more remark than "also". It is more than that; it is ridiculous! Mongeese has no etymological or colloquial basis better than having occurred in a joke that I remember from early childhood: "Send another one with it!" (In desperation, having tried to decide on the correct plural.)

I did check up in Category:Nonstandard (thanks, btw) where the word does not occur, incidentally, and I reckon that when we include nonstandardisms then the least we should do is to note their status as such, the way that other dictionaries of standing do. (Some of them anyway!!! ("also" indeed!)) I say that if we do include that one, we should add something along the lines of "facetiously illiterate" or the like.

I really do accept that much growth of English and presumably most languages has been through similar routes, but ftm, much has been by simple error, and much of such material has died early (if belatedly) and unlamented. I see no reason to increase the linguistic noise level with actual encouragement.

Any comment?

Jon JonRichfield 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes I added a nonstandard tag to mongoose next to the plural mongeese. I understand your frustration, there's quite a lot in Category:English misspellings that I'd like to delete, but can't. The nonstandard tag is designed to alert the reader. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Look, I am sorry about that. I was lost trying to get back to my say and modify it, and meanwhile you replied. These things always take me longer than they should even when they are easy. Life is confusing. I went back to contemplate the entry (which of course I should have done before replying), and although I would have tagged it a lot less tolerantly than you, I suppose that will do.

Thanks. Jon

JonRichfield 13:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really wish you wouldn't delete this term.

Obviously you don't have to struggle with words like "tablet computers" and "smartphones" when you're building applications in Objective C. One application building in Objective C can run on both the iPad and iPhone. Then you do versions for Android and others. This is the word that describes all of these devices.

Erm, really? The problem is you wrote a definition for a common noun, but it appears to be a brand name (or just nothing at all). Smartplatform would be ok, if (and only if) it meets WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

How would you do that, since you need a separate pronounciation section for any Hoisanese words. The phonology is different, but since it is a form of Chinese, and all Chinese use the same characters, every word would have a "Context:Hoisanese" with the same definition.

76.66.200.95 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The mutually intelligibility between Hoisanese and Guandonghua (the Cantonese spoken in Canton City, Hong Kong, Macau) is not complete, since some basic words use different syllables. 76.66.200.95 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason not to do that, we regularly have different pronunciations for the same word, put {{a|Hoisanese}} before the pronunciation. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, why does Chinese have separate sections, if they could all be accommodated with the "accent" templates? The only written difference is simplified or traditional.

Let's take three (3) - three in Canton Cantonese is "saam", but in Hoisan, it is "thlaam", usually Hong Kong people have no idea what you've just said. But it is written the same way as it is in Mandarin, Min Nan, or any other Chinese.

Does the accent template categorize? Or do you need to add a context tag to the pronounciation tag? ::76.66.200.95 08:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, but if it has the same meaning with a different pronunciation, there's nothing to categorize. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure there is, since if you actually used a phonetic alphabet, they'd be completely different words. So, categorizing the pronounciation, indicates what articles have information about the word in Hoisanese. If there's no way to find it, the usefulness of Hoisan dialect information dramatically decreases, and there'd be little point in adding the information in the first place. 76.66.200.95 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This also applies to all Chineses, since they all encode the same written form, which doesn't require multiple sections on each page. The only difference is regionalisms for a few words, and pronounciation for all words. 76.66.200.95 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will note that the pronounciation of a word does not correspond with the written form, as two completely different pronounciations can be written the same way, in the same dialect. 76.66.200.95 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that "Translingual" is correct here? SemperBlotto 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're definitely asking the wrong person, but in a word - no. We use translingual for individual sinogramme (indeed, for any individual character, a, =) but when there's more than one character, we use individual languages. I'd ask Atitarev. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the term used in Japanese. 76.66.200.95 09:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

ie. 彼らは、広東語に多少似ている台山話の方言を話した

76.66.200.95 09:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not being funny, but could you send me fewer messages. I'm trying to do a string of edits and it's not easy with all these orange banners. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Wow this is a huge mess. Cleaning up now. ---> Tooironic 12:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any chance you would like to add Old French "deu"? Some sources say it is a past participle of devoir. --Dan Polansky 18:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably deü per seü, veü, etc. I'll look into it, I'd say the chances of it being valid are high to very high. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. For some sources, see AHD:due and OEtD:due. --Dan Polansky 08:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Problem is Deu means God (and deu god) so there are loads of hits for that. Deü gets two hits in Middle French. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

(after edit conflict) French Wiktionary's fr:veü says "veü" is a variant of fr:veu. French Wiktionary has "veu" as the major entry for the inflected form, while "veü" being merely a variant. I know nothing of Old French; I am just looking at fr:wikt. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tremas seem to be used in Modern transcriptions such as on the French Wikisource, but there was a debate over vëoir (fr:vëoir) as to whether it was valid, that is, is it a trema or just a dirty mark on the page of the original. It's a pretty uninteresting debate, believe me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is normal practice, or particularly useful, to block someone indefinitely for adding their own protologism, without warning or welcome. It's clear from the edit that their was a real person on the other end, and one who simply didn't know that we have inclusion criteria (as most user-contributed sites, like UrbanDictionary, don't). I think what we should be doing in cases like these is to spend a few minutes giving them the welcome template and informing them that you have deleted their entry (perhaps point to WT:LOP), and only blocking in the case of obstinacy, where it is clear they don't intend to cooperate after having been given a chance. Would you mind unblocking that user and telling them what they did wrong, or if I did so? Dominic·t 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's probably academic, my experience is when you block a vandal for one day, they usually never edit again, so blocking them with an expiry time of infinite usually has the same effect, but not more. Sure, I'll unblock him. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The point I was trying to make was that there was no evidence of malice in this case, only cluelessness. But I have made the same observation about vandals, though. To me, that means that we should therefore err on the side of short blocks, not indefinite ones. Since most of the daylong blocks do the same job as an indefinite one, there is little risk in leniency, and at least the possibility of a benefit, if someone wants another chance. Dominic·t 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about this yesterday, I don't think I've ever seen a vandal, a real vandal rather than a poor editor, turn into a serious editor. They either get blocked once and never come back, or continue to vandalize and get longer and longer blocks. So there's little risk of harm or benefit. I generally block for 3 hours or one day, or more if it's attack material or spam links. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you want my take, the benefits of leniency are twofold. First, regardless of whether or not a particular blocked user ever comes back, encouraging warnings and instruction instead of harsh blocks helps to combat a culture of impunity among administrators, where well-meaning contributors might find themselves blocked only for being new or different. Such a community (which Wiktionary often resembles) is also unwelcoming not just to newcomers, but potential newcomers, especially contributors from other Wikimedia projects—our main source of editors—who might only know of us by reputation. And then there are the blocked users themselves. Many users' first response when confronted with a wiki is incredulity. They try it out, curious if their edits are actually saved to the site in real-time, and these experiments often look like vandalism. It is reasonable to suspect, but impossible to measure, that many of our editors started out that way, most likely anonymously or under a different account name that they abandoned due to the stigma of a block in their log. Even if there were no practical benefits, though, I still think that the principle that blocks should be preventative and not punitive is a sound one, and means we limit our blocks only to what is necessary, even if a harsher block would do no harm and be more satisfying. Dominic·t 05:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Word. —Ruakh_TALK 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could this translate as the verb to cord? (See the French wiktionary entry) SemperBlotto 11:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I'm jus trying to do too many things at once. I need to check the OF entry for hurter as well that I made last night. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! Actually what the TILF says about pronunciation for parce que is that /pas.kə/ is "négligé" (ie. sloppy). And it's true that I will only pronounce it that way in informal settings. So maybe if we have just one pronunciation it should be /paʁskə/. /paʁsəkə/ is more formal. What do you think ? Gougnafier 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was think the same thing, yes, several lines seems appropriate here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I recently submitted the term "Veterinary Thermal Imaging" to Wiktionary and see that it has already been deleted! I was curious as to why this relatively well established term was not deemed suitable for inclusion. There is no one term used to describe the application of thermography to animals. Veterinary Thermal Imaging summarises it perfectly!

Thanks in advance. Vetpractice 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a fair question. A couple of things

1. Can you provide any evidence of use in the (English-speaking) veterinary community?
2. Even if you can, isn't this covered by veterinary + thermal imaging?

Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Thermography
http://www.veterinary-thermal-imaging.com
http://www.infraredcamerasinc.com/Medical-Imaging-Photo-Gallery/Medical-Thermal-Imaging-Photo-Gallery.html
http://www.equinethermalimaging.info/Events.html
http://www.ukta.org/documents/uktanews20.pdf
http://www.veteldiagnostics.com/pdfs/ThermalSeminar_04_09.pdf
http://www.infraredtraining.com/community/boards/thread/6698/

As a few examples!

It's akin to Veterinary Physiotherapy where 'physiotherapy' refers to a whole range of disciplines, but doesn't apply directly to the animal field unless combined with 'veterinary'. Thermal Imaging has applications in the building industry, electrical testing, search and surveilance etc... The combination of veterinary and thermal imaging together creates an adverb of meaning to the reader.

Vetpractice 12:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Noun, not adverb, and what meaning? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Noun: The production of an objective heat map showing the varying surface temperature of an animal in response to underlying physiological changes. Used in the early detection of injuries and monitoring of chronic conditions by vets and para-professionals. Vetpractice 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd try Wikipedia. Why haven't you, or has it already been deleted on Wikipedia? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

My next step will be the creation of a page on Wikipedia, however, I'd thought it would be appropriate to include the term on Wiktionary as well. Vetpractice 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not according to me; try WT:TR (add a new section at the bottom) if you feel you want an opinion other than mine. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'd like to know why you keep deleting my new entry under the etymology of the word "Cadaver".

The first line says clearly that the information is "probable" (no source, only a date). So why do you keep rejecting the one I suggest, which explains much better how this word could have come to exist in early Roman times (even if I must confess that I do not remember where I got it from, but I believe it was from one of my teachers)? Here it is again, you can check it with a Latin professor who will tell you that my explanation is perfectly sound and highly plausible.

CADAVER could also be a contraction of the Latin "CArnis — DAta — VERmibus" which literally translates into "meat — which should be given — to worms".

I aggree that I had the word "vermibus" wrong ("veribus") the first time. But this time, I know that all the words and the sentence check.

Your answer would be greatly appreciated. I might learn something new. Thank you in advance.

Fosto3D 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• See the note in the etymology of the Latin entry. SemperBlotto 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Just seemed like you'd made it up on the spot. Did you? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Old words are practically never formed by cut-'n'-shut truncation of a longer phrase. Equinox ◑ 10:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, it looks like i created the page while thinking that i was at :fr. And you fixed it all. Thanks. --Jerome Potts 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I transwikied. I should be thanking you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so that's what it is. I was going over my past contributions and spotted this creation of mine, which had been modified since. So apparently the transwikiing carries the history over --Jerome Potts 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply