User talk:Razorflame

• February to December 2009
• January to July 2010
• July 2010 to July 2013

I hope you're alright. Do you plan on returning? πr² (talk • changes) 18:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Everything is fine. I'm probably going to return eventually, but the reception I got when I was actively editing previously has made me very nervous to return to editing here. Razorflame 00:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you editing again. I've been a little worried. You're always welcome on the Simple English Wiktionary. I've mostly left simpewikipedia, but I'm sure you could help there. If you ever need an admin action on Meta, let me know. ;) πr² (talk • changes) 03:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I'm going to be nowhere near as active as I was prior to my one year block. Razorflame 00:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly, I don't know your history firsthand. But per #Future edits... I don't see on what basis you're breaking your oath. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh? Where did this come from? That message was left over two years ago, so I don't see any reason to even bring it up. I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm editing where I feel comfortable, and if I come across a word in a language that I know little about, then I usually go to the best person for that language. In terms of recent translations I've been adding, the page either already existed, or I found the translation on said languages' Wiktionary. I don't see anything wrong about adding translations for words that have pages in other Wiktionaries, do you? Razorflame 03:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again. I was just trying to enter the non-lemma forms for some Latin words when I finally noticed that a proper noun, Remus, was showing a plural. I highly doubt that the name of a founder of Rome would be presented in the plural, but I cannot find anything on it, especially on Template:la-proper noun-form. Would you be able to advise me on whether the plural should be removed, and how one might do that? Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one you should be asking this question. I just came back about a week ago, and I've forgotten most of what I've learned over my four years of editing here and on other Wikiprojects. I would highly recommend you direct your question to either User:CodeCat or User:EncycloPetey. Cheers, Razorflame 16:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you'd like to take over my Asturian bot? --TempWFbotaccount (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no notion of doing such a thing. Your edits are getting borderline disruptive now and you either need to limit them, or you'll get blocked by an admin. It's as simple as that. You also need to apply for a bot flag if you want to continue doing so, and wait until you're approved for a test period. How do we know that the entries your bot is creating are correct? Razorflame 18:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Regards.--Avocato (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Razorflame 20:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done.--GatoSelvadego (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Razorflame 20:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not quite sure why you undid diff. The info's correct (cf. Lewis & Short) and it only needed a tiny cleanup. Hyarmendacil (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Undid because it did not conform to WT:ELE, as I pointed out in the edit summary. Razorflame 04:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Er... but it's only 5 seconds worth of cleaning! And it's useful info. I don't think you should undo newbie contributions just because they have small formatting issues. Hyarmendacil (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to stop adding content in languages you don't know. Reference: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff; these include Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, Polish, Turkish, Waray-Waray. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I do know French. Second of all, all of the translations I found were from the projects' respective Wiktionaries or Wikipedias. Razorflame 20:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

So these are copyright violations, right? Wiktionaries and Wikipedias are licensed under CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution. I hope someone blocks you soon, anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, they aren't. Information gotten from other projects doesn't have to be attributed because it is the same license by which all the projects are. Hence why you are able to get information from one project and put it on another project. Second of all, you need to get your head out of your butt and stop banging on me for everything I do. Everything I've been doing recently has been correct, and for the benefit of this project. I don't need people who hold grudges against me to continue to hold me down when I've not been doing anything wrong. So get off my case and stop posting on my talk page. Razorflame 20:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The same license does not mean the requirement of attribution dropped; that's ridiculous. Your poor understanding of licensing has been exposed when you added copyrighted Czech entries to Wiktionary, which we needed to delete. You don't have a clue, but enough of chutzpah. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

To make it a bit more vivid: Do you really think that I can take an article from WP (CC-BY-SA), paste it to my web page under CC-BY-SA and present it as if I were the author, claiming that attribution is not needed as the licenses are the same? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, everything may be correct, but you may still be violating Wiktionary and/or Wikimedia policy. As an example, some of your Ido entries may be in contravention of WT:CFI; see WT:RFV#alotropa as an example. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pff! Pure translations are facts and are not copyrightable, no matter what you may believe. There is no problem with adding these to Wiktionary at all. It's a different situation with (English) definitions but those are not an issue here.
To me, this seems like bashing Razorflame for the sake of bashing Razorflame. If he makes any mistakes, then you can complain. But don't accuse him of things that he has the right to do. -- Liliana • 21:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can submit your thesis that translation pairs are not copyrightable in Beer parlour. I recall several editors claiming otherwise.

Furthermore, adding translation pairs for languages with which one is not familiar at all is very likely to introduce countless errors.

So two things: copyright, reliability. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a thesis, it's truth. I know Ruakh disagrees with me but that's because he hates me and any friends of me (MG, CodeCat among others).
As for reliability, I know Razorflame has a particularly bad track record, but it's been a few years and he might have improved since then. So wait and see what he does and don't just complain immediately. -- Liliana • 21:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a thesis with which several people disagree, including me and Ruakh. Your remark about Ruakh hating you and your friends is a facebooky nonsense claim that I am surprised to see you make. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert in diff? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. I expect you to do that. Razorflame 21:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not see you asking me to stop posting to your talk page anyway. But even if you did: I have just brought to your attention a suspect edit of yours. What is your explanation for that edit? You are not entitled to shoddy editing accompanied by sending people away from your talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Then you did not read my reply in the above section very carefully. I said get off my case and stop posting on my talk page. And I have every right to tell you to do so, as this is my talk page. I reverted that edit because it does not seem logical and is most likely incorrect. Secondly, I do not do shoddy editing as you state. I do what is best for this project. So stop posting on my talk page and get back to working on the Wiktionary, like I'm trying to do. Razorflame 21:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can't prevent people from posting on your talk page. I do suppose you could quietly remove any message you don't like, though. (Nothing says you can't.)
As for the revert, that sense does seem dubious to me, but a revert was inappropriate here. I put it in RFV. -- Liliana • 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The sense also seemed dubious to me, but I quick google image search could have shown you that it's most probably correct. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Humm...interesting. Razorflame 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any further posts by Dan Polansky will be removed. Razorflame 21:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have restored муравей with some additions. I think Razorflame is behaving childishly - reverting an edit of a person who knows a language better than him and now not letting people discuss it on his talk page. BTW, User:Dixtosa is coming from a former USSR country with the Babel level of Russian = 2. I don't know his age but the transportation used in the USSR must be very familiar to him. Anyway, they stopped producing the motor roller only in 1995. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Google images of the motor scooter in question --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, I only made the revert because it was dubious in nature. I'm sorry for doing that now. Razorflame 03:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You really cannot just remove Dan’s questions without responding to them. I know Ric used to do that with your questions on his page, and that’s probably where you got the idea that it would be okay. Ric was wrong to do it, but he did such great work otherwise that we tended to overlook his tantrums. But if you just removed Dan’s comments and tried to ignore them, it would quickly blossom into trouble on the WT:BP. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate it if you would go through your entries and make sure that they all pass WT:CFI. I can keep finding things like alotropo and alotropa, posting them to RFV, and have you own up to them as mistakes, but that's wasting everyone else's time. Instead, it would be better if you tag the entries you created that can't be attested, and be more careful in the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I'll go through some of the more exotic words, however, it might take me some time. I hope to get them done within a few days, OK? Furthermore, I wouldn't call those words mistakes because they were included in two separate English-Ido translation dictionaries that I've found over the Internet. I thought they had the appropriate sources, but I didn't know they had so few. Razorflame 03:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good. By the way, auxlangs like Ido are what some people call "evangelist languages" — the proponents want people to speak their languages so desperately that they make wordlists of uncommon protologisms expecting that this will give a canonical vocabulary to hypothetical Idist physicians. But even when you entries in a natural language, you've got to realise that you need better sources for the content you're adding than online translation dictionaries! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks as though you're doing the exact same thing again that got you repeatedly blocked for increasing periods in the past, i.e. adding unverified content in languages you don't know. Honestly, why? Equinox ◑ 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only difference is that I know Ido, so your argument that I don't know the language is invalid. Razorflame 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You told me above that you would specifically cease creating entries that are easily demonstrable to be in direct contravention of WT:CFI, and that you would tag such entries that you had already created for deletion. You are still creating these entries after having made that promise, for example desferizar. Unless you can cite such entries and thus prove me incorrect, this is not acceptable behaviour. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In terms of that specific entry, I found a source on the Internet that had it listed, so I figured it was all right in terms of verifiableness...as for other entries, I'm still working on it. I have quite a backlog that I'm working through right now. I know that this is not acceptable behavior, but how on earth do you expect me to check every single entry I make? Razorflame 04:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

We already went over this. Read WT:ATTEST (I'm sure someone, probably me, already told you to read it, but evidently you did not). By "durably archived" we are essentially referring to printed media, Google Books, and Google Groups.

You told me 6 days ago that it would take a "few" days for you to deal with it. I thus gave you a reasonable amount of time. I see no indication that you have done the checking of previously created entries that you promised to do.

All editors are expected to follow the rules. I make sure that my entries are attestable, and on occasion I have tagged my own entries to be attested because I realised I had made an error of judgment. Some editors, like Equinox, have created thousands of entries and yet, to the best of my knowledge, never created an entry that did not meet CFI. It's not that hard to check.

You have been given so many chances, so many times. Only speaking of your edits from 2013, there are a range of problems, including those pointed out by me, Stephen G. Brown, and Dan Polansky. I can only hope that you will do as you have sworn and that this talkpage will no longer bear witness to poor editing habits. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I'll go through them this time, though not today. I will start either tomorrow or the day after and will mark those that do not meet WT:CFI for deletion. Razorflame 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, I will trust you. I hope you live up to that trust. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are the online sources in which Wiktionary editors can verify that "ತಡೆ" is correct? Thus, what is the as-complete-as-possible list of links to specific pages of these sources online which describe the word or provide evidence of what the word means? Furthermore, what is the as-complete-as-possible list of offline sources that you have used in creation of this entry, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

<moved from user page>

Hi friend I have searched citations which connect Kamboh with ancient name Kamboja. Please dont revert. These are Citations from notable scholars who connect the modern Kamboh with anciuent Kambojas. If you want to dispute, join me in the discussion forum and dispute what I have quoted or written as in the Citations section. I am reverting it back so that we can discuss the issue in a civil and polite manner. Thanks

71.193.5.163

Hi ], I am leaving second message here for you. Let us discuss if you see problem with my edits. And please do not revert my edits without discussing and assigning a reason. — This unsigned comment was added by 71.193.5.163 (talk) at 20:59, August 10, 2013‎.

In the future, please leave messages on the talk/discussion page, not the user page (that's why your first note was reverted in the first place). Razorflame: I protected your user page so only auto-confirmed users can edit it. Let me know if you want that changed.

As for his revert: I don't always agree with his reverts, but in this case, I would have done the same if he hadn't beaten me to it. You not only added citations, but also changed headers and rearranged things- all to push your POV. If you keep this kind of thing up, you'll end up blocked, just as you have been previously under another user name. This is a dictionary, not your personal soapbox. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the citations for the reasons that Chuck has explained on this message board. Razorflame 03:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck: As long as it is just the user page, I'm fine with it. You'd probably need cascading protection (if that exists here), if you protect the main user page. Razorflame 03:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you able to fix my translation of the cite here? My Ido is a bit weak, and there may be a mistake. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, let me take a look and see what I can do about it :) Razorflame 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and taken a look at the translation, and for the most part, it was correct. I just needed to make two changes to two words: proxime and pruvas. pruvas is the present tense of the very pruvar, which is to prove, and proxime is best translated as approximately, or closely. Nearly and closely are fairly close translations, so I substituted in closely there. There are two other notes that I need to make: bonstando is not an Ido word as far as I can tell...if it was, it would be a compound of bona and stando. Stando does mean situation, but in a permanent condition. I have no idea why the quotation made bonstando an Ido word when I've never heard of it, nor is it in the Ido Wiktionary. Pro-porcionale is the other word. This is the alternative form of proporcionale, which as you correctly translated, does mean proportionally. Cheers, Razorflame 22:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Responded on my talkpage. Better to keep the discussion in one place if we can, just as a note for the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know it's best to keep discussions at one place. I only posted that message to your talk page in case you weren't watching my talk page. Razorflame 03:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Sorry for the necro, but bonstando can mean "wellbeing", "good condition (with some permanence)" or "wealth", "welfare" (though not "welfare benefits"). Here, it apparently translates this: "This would have been a splendid proof of our prosperity if it were evenly distributed." (page 29). Which seems sensible. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Better late than never, I suppose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to ask you what the Kannada at the top of this page means. I know Kannada, and "ನನ್ನು" definitely isn't a word, and the sentence doesn't make sense. If you're trying to say "I am yours," that would be "ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮವನು."

Princeps linguae (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if you didn't like that I edited your page, but trust me--it is wrong, and so is the transliteration of the Kannada translation of your username. Princeps linguae (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't really matter if it is incorrect or not. I hardly come on this project, so there's no need for any changes to take place. Razorflame 06:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, whatever. It's your page. Princeps linguae (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I sincerely hope you see the problem with these terms, apart from attestation concerns. Worry not, I have cleaned up the mess.__Gamren (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait, you're inactive. Never mind then.__Gamren (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply