User talk:Razorflame/Archive 1

I've responded further on my talkpage.—msh210℠ 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads-up! I have responded to your query on your talk page. Cheers, Razorflame 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wiktionary Criteria for inclusion. There are thousands (English and non-English) words on the Wiktionary you are not likely to found in any written dictionary. But that doesn't mean these don't word exist! If people use them, write them, we add them, granted that there is enough evidence on the usage (cites of 3 authors spanning 3 years IIRC).

Now, what you question here is a plural form of a word. In order words, you state that the word is uncountable? If so, you should try the usual verification procedure by means of {{rfv}} template, and if someone finds a plural usage satisfying CFI (and puts in on the entry, or in the Citations:flowings), CFI will be satisfied and the argument "other dictionaries don't list it" will mean exactly nothing. Perhaps it should be marked by some context label such as {{rare}} or {{nonstandard}} - dunno, I don't usually maintain English-language entries. HTH. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ho hum. Are we only to copy what other dictionaries have decreed, ignoring words that have been used but that somebody else neglected to list? This word has been used by significant writers like Francis Bacon ("the first flowings of the Scriptures") and Elizabeth Barrett Browning ("All flowings from the wave and wind"); unfortunately, it's quite hard to get exact dates for these, so I haven't added them to the entry. Equinox 16:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You know who I am, hi. I was previously blocked here, but now I'm beginning again, as I was being stupid and was blocked for a good reason, and now I will behave differently. Just for the record, I think my block on Simple is unjustified, but I think it will crumble anyway, and that the project will be run by foolish teenagers. By the way, I didn't know that you had turned 18. I was FürWissen, and I think the stubs are useless. My advise is to stay an editor, and actually create content, not stubs with little or no information about a river, but you can do what you want, I don't care that much now that I'm banned.

Jonas 68.96.213.118 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you ignoring me? Jonas 68.96.213.118 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm ignoring you, Jonas, because you are a banned editor who is known for being disruptive. I want to have no part in any discussion with you. If you do not stop making changes on my talk page, I will have it protected for a while. Razorflame 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, so much for at least trying to remain friendly, but I'll respect such a thing and leave you alone. And technically I'm not "banned", either. Somebody at Wikipedia has chosen to tell you lies about me, and you have chosen to believe them. I'm not "banned" where ever I go, you know. Jonas 68.96.213.118 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! It is not necessary to manually create plurals of Italian nouns and adjectives; we have a bot User:SemperBlottoBot that automatically generates them. --Barmar 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - this bot still runs almost daily. Doing it manually is counterproductive as the bot still tries to do it again. SemperBlotto 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Ok, I will say this in as nice of a tone as I can, but anyone has the right to create any page they wish. You cannot "set aside" pages for a bot to create when and if it falls into the interests of another editor. If another editor wishes to create the pages, you will have to let them, since even though it might make your bot confused, they still have a right to make the pages, as no one can own or "set aside" any pages for someone else to create, especially if that user is a bot. Does it really matter who creates the pages so long as they get created? Razorflame 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it just the genitive of Latin nouns you wish accelerated? What does EncycloPetey normally do with creating Latin form-ofs? Danish is not yet accelerated, could you please link me to a word with all the forms you want accelerated already completed so I can copy how they should be formatted. Dutch I think is ok apart from plural dimminutives or something, There's a request on WT:ACCEL which I'll get round to eventually. Conrad.Irwin 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like all the forms of Latin nouns accelerated. I have no idea EncycloPetey did Laitn nouns. I would ask him directly. I don't know the exact changes that need to be made because I actually don't know the template systems here. Dutch is a big problem for me because it doesn't link half of the words that I want it to link for acceleration. I will get you a link to a Danish word with all of the forms that need acceleration for you as soon as I can. Cheers, Razorflame 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

We don't have these, and the last time a similar idea was introduced it got deleted after six months of no use; it probably falls under our WT:USER-like "please don't waste time with pointless user-space frivolities" ethos. Conrad.Irwin 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yours was fine. I added the kind of etymology that works for things named after people, although I should have put something for "-ite". I reworded the definition and realised that there is a possibility of ambiguity in using words like "consisting" and "including" because those words could refer to the substance or the group. It's not as easy as it looks. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Even better with SB's changes? DCDuring TALK 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, those changes were great additions to the page :). Thanks for the help! Razorflame 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I just sort of got caught up with school. I will almost certainly be going back to contribute to Simple when I have the time to contribute anywhere, but right now I just have no time.  :) Cheers. --Neskaya kanetsv 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if I have time, I could probably modify creation.js to suit simple, but it is very tightly bound to the conventions on en.wikt at the moment (and is not very well engineered, even for that). I am quite busy at the moment in real life - but it is something I can maybe look at after the end of this term. (I've also been asked to look at it on sv.wiktionary). Probably the easiest thing for me to do would be to re-write most of it as a framework that people could modify for their own Wiktionaries, but from what I've seen there would be very little code shared between them. If you are interested in writing something similar yourself, the idea should be very easy to copy - User:Visviva/pretext.js and some class names added to templates. Conrad.Irwin 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is by far not the easiest way to proceed - but as you've started.. You need to firstly add the meta-data to templates (as described on WT:ACCEL) then you need to modify the script to read the meta-data and send the correct parameters to AutoEdit. (Which you'll also need to import - you need the specific oldid that I am using as some Wikipedian broke the script after that). Conrad.Irwin 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I actually stopped doing that as it didn't work. I deleted all of the pages that I created, so no harm was done. Furthermore, I didn't edit any pages here, so it is all ok. Thanks for telling me this :). Cheers, Razorflame 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The word incendiary was stricken out because it has been selected to be a WOTD this month (25 Mar). This is indicated in the page edit history. --EncycloPetey 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information! Now I do know this! Cheers, Razorflame 08:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The words have only been loaded through the 15th of this month (so far). You can see the full list of selections for March here, where I coordinate the upcoming selections. Selections aren't loaded into the templates until the sound files have been recorded, otherwise the template will have problems. What you are seeing from the 16th onwards are the selections from last year, since the daily pages are recycled. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I can't usually be bothered to do these, but it's nice to have them. Stupid French and its stupid gendered ways :) Equinox ◑ 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, no problems. For some of the words that you created, the masculine and feminine plurals are the same, so I've been creating the pages that list them as both the feminine and masculine plurals. I think that this is the right way to do it, but I am not too sure. Cheers, Razorflame 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can I copy part of your mineral words to create page to my userspace for easier access? Thanks, Razorflame 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course, if you like. I don't really see how something like User:Razorflame/Minerals would be "easier to access" than User:Equinox/Minerals, but it won't cause any problems in terms of blue links and what not. By the way, although I disregarded this with many entries I created — because I hadn't thought of it at the time — most or all of these minerals can be uncountable: that is, you can have some blahite as well as two blahites from different regions. Therefore the template should be {{en-noun|s|-}}. Equinox ◑ 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

By easier to access, I meant smaller, plus I could have my own plethora of user subpages in my own userspace that could make it much easier for me to access, because all I would have to do would be to go to my own userpage and click the appropriate subpage link :D. Thanks for the further help :). Cheers, Razorflame 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not mark your article creation edits as minor. - Amgine/^talk 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that's what the creation.js does. Otherwise, I would not mark them as minor edits. I've been having them marked as minor edits since a month ago, and nobody else has complained about it. Cheers, Razorflame 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yah, sorry too. I just asked cirwin about that... - Amgine/^talk 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had some problems at the beginning, but it was easier: It wasn't hard to figure out exactly what and why what I was doing was wrong. Anyway, simple apologies as yours certainly go a long way. I don't think anyone was happy to see you go. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blimey, that was a quick retirement. Welcome back. There are definitely differences here in attitude and policy from Wikipedia's, and sometimes people do err on the side of illiberality, but I've never seen anything "suppressed" that couldn't be brought back with some proper formatting and a better explanation. Equinox ◑ 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kind messages. I will take your advice to heart. Will add more tomorrow, I'm tired (it's 2:09AM right now :P). Cheers, Razorflame 07:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Right after I post the examples, you go ahead and create the pages." Presumably you only posted the examples to indicate something we were missing; so I fixed that. It was still the case that those were valid examples at the time they were posted (as anybody could see by looking at the history), but I think that expanding en.wikt is more important than holding back until a discussion is finished! I didn't create the entries in order to annoy you or to invalidate your point. (Indeed, if simple.wikt has so many entries that we don't, you should trivially be able to find more and perhaps generate a list.) Equinox ◑ 01:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I didn't think that you created them to invalidate my point; I was just surprised that you already created them :P. Cheers, Razorflame 07:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requesting assistance and volunteers to help a related MW project would certainly be an appropriate posting to make. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the information! Cheers, Razorflame 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for commenting about the proposed category move. Carolina Wren's question prompted me to rethink it, and I've started again at a new subheading. Please sound off. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-03-19 15:57 z

The masculine plural is (deprecated template usage) alvéolopalataux, not (deprecated template usage) alvéolopalatals. Please do not add inflected forms unless you are certain that that which you are adding is in accordance with the language's inflectional mechanics and quirks. Cheers! 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And please don't talk to me like I'm some 7 year old child. For all that you know, I'm probably older than you. Thank you, Razorflame 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I created that entry. Sorry about the mistake. My French is fair but not great. Equinox ◑ 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I came off the wrong way but I may have had other things on my mind and/or fristrating me at the time. I didn't mean to offend you. :) How old are you anyway? (Also I have to wonder if a seven year old child would have understood that at all.) 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am older than you. That is all that needs to be said. Razorflame 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Evidently better than the last one so far! Equinox ◑ 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

:)That is good to hear :). Cheers, Razorflame 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do tell me why you reverted my edit on urs, especially considering the state of ur and u. --165.228.107.78 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because it is not correct. None of the other online dictionaries say that it is a potential word in the English language. Razorflame 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

pff that's rubbish my friends and I use urs all the time, besides, dictionaries are meant to conform to languages, languages are not meant to conform to dictionaries, otherwise the only valid language would be proto-indo-european :p --165.228.107.78 02:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to stop using edit summaries like the ones you have already been using. Secondly, urs is not an English word according to four different online dictionaries. Feel free to provide evidence that it is, and I will believe it is an English word. Razorflame 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The creation of {{hu-third-person singular singular-possessive of}} does not strike me as the best way to go. Most inflected forms in Wiktionary are created using generic templates, not language-specific templates.

Why are you not just using {{form of}}?

Also, the template {{hu-third-person singular singular-possessive of}} creates the category Category:Hungarian third-person singular singular-possessives, which seems like an overcategorization, to me anyway. There have been some discussions about this in Beer Parlour, although I do not remember the results, admittedly.

On another note, fasírtja should not contain a declension table, as inflected forms should not contain declension tables, AFAIK. --Dan Polansky 09:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was taking a shot at the creation of them, as I was not sure how to go about creating them, but now that you have given me some ideas, I will definitely start using the {{form of}} template now. Thanks for the tips, Razorflame 09:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have now had a look at Category:Hungarian noun forms. Naturally, you are not the first one to create Hungarian noun forms, so the first thing you could do is to look around how things are already done, and do it the same way.

It seems that the common practice is to use {{hu-inflection of}} created by the active native Hungarian speaker User:Panda10, seen e.g. in faeprekbe. The template {{hu-inflection of}} has a documentation that includes examples.

The term faeper is a noun that has all its inflected noun forms already entered into Wiktionary, so you can use it as a copy-and-paste model. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your help! I've started using the template that you pointed out in the creation of all the Hungarian Noun entries that I write from now on here. Thanks again, Razorflame 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(A little friendly note) "On another note, fasírtja should not contain a declension table, as inflected forms should not contain declension tables, AFAIK." I think that Hungarian bends this rule in some cases. Unfortunately I can't link to an example but I do know that I once saw a Hungarian "form of" entry (like...illative singular or something) that had a possessives table (like what ever it was it was to facilitate forms meaning things like "in my house" ). However, Dan is correct as far as the situation he is referencing is concerned. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've already decided to not include the declension tables in the form of entries because it actually doesn't look appropriate to me, as it is already in the entry for the root word. Razorflame 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I requested verification for this. Actually I think it is pretty disgusting what you created, but you probably acted in good faith. There is a serious problem here though. I'd appreciate your comments. Jcwf 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I don't know the conjugations of the word, but I know I got the main words or what was meant by them. Razorflame 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

… are a bad idea. —Ruakh_TALK 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fine...all I am trying to do is help out by taking some of the load off of others plates. I'm just trying to fit in and people just keep on berating me for everything I do. If you mean the Hebrew one I just made, I'll put a note out saying that I won't do accelerated Hebrew entries.... Razorflame 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that if you inadvertently create a form that doesn't actually exist, you will make more work for others in cleaning them up. Having the green links does seem to be asking for trouble, though. I agree with somebody's comment that the template should not offer inflected forms by default when they don't exist for the majority of words: it would be like our adjective templates always putting -er and -est on the word instead of defaulting to the safer more and most. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to be more careful in the future. Razorflame 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't mean to berate. It's just that it seems kind of like a waste of effort on your part; after all, if you want to be creating these entries "blind" (so to speak), you might as well just write a bot for that. And in the case of Hebrew, the entry just goes straight into a cleanup category anyway (because the acceleration doesn't, and can't, provide the transliteration). So your entry did no harm — the lemma's inflection line was correct — I just imagine that there are other things you could work on that might be less tedious, and where you could be more certain you were helping. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it. I feel like I am helping the English Wiktionary no matter what I do, so it's all good :). Cheers, Razorflame 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, the entry looks fine. A good rule of thumb for finding the usual (or only) spelling is to try a search on Google Books (and/or Scholar, Groups, etc.). This would probably help to rule out those non-existent Dutch diminutives and things, too: anything with little or no usage in books is immediately suspicious. Equinox ◑ 19:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Will do in the future. Thanks again for the help! Razorflame 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

A lot of organic compounds have attestable plurals, even if they are only referring to particular versions or formulations ("most commercially available homosalates are mixtures of two isomers, the cis and the trans"). I can't find very many plural uses of this word, but they are out there. Equinox ◑ 20:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. I was glad that I decided to have it have a plural then :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem there, as they seem to be inventing the damn things more quickly than we can document them. I think Wikipedia's alphabetical "list of drugs" is going to be a big red-link-fest on the scale of the boring minerals, and it will be out of date by the time we finish it. "On, on one goes, not knowing why or how." Equinox ◑ 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I tend to agree with you there, and to top it all off, I also got my hands full making form-of entries for Hungarian nouns, so I probably won't get around to making too many drug entries, but I'll still make some. Cheers, Razorflame 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those are just the green links, right? Seems like a bot job. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope, they aren't green links. They are declensions, so I would rather that I do them because I like doing menial, routine things. Razorflame 23:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The plural (deprecated template usage) sexagesimo-quartos does not appear to be attestable according to CFI. You do have to do some research! Don't just create a page because there's a green link. Green links are frequently wrong. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I've taken your advice and have started double-checking words that I am unfamiliar with (plurals) to make sure that they can be attested. Thanks for the help, Razorflame 05:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Hungarian translation you added to claw hammer does not exist. I don't know what your source is but I'd like to ask you again: Please do not add more Hungarian translations and main entries. Thank you. --Panda10 00:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Razorflame 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any particular reason you're adding eo forms manually instead of using creation.js?--Yair rand 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only the first link is green for me. The other two are red. That is why I had to add them manually. Razorflame 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

How odd. All of them show up as green for me. You might want to tell Conrad.Irwin about this. --Yair rand 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chances are I haven't hard-refreshed since the changes were made to Cirwn's creation.js. I'll hardrefresh to see if that fixes the problem. Razorflame 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope. They're largely regarded as needless clutter around here. I'm sure people still appreciate thanks, but it doesn't require the use of templatized icons. Equinox ◑ 17:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the information! Razorflame 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, why not? I wonder what in the hell "leafcasting" is. I hope it's something a witch does. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be plenty of derived terms for the word leaf, so I thought that it would be a good addition to your list of words to add ;). Anyways, cheers, Razorflame 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Sum of parts" means that the phrase has a (supposedly) obvious meaning based on its constituent words. For example, we wouldn't have an entry for "eco-friendly building", even though it's a common phrase and there are plenty of them, because it's just a "building" that is "eco-friendly", and nothing more: you don't need any further explanation. CFI doesn't, however, ban sum of parts per se. To delete something on that basis you usually also need to demonstrate that it isn't idiomatic. This probably explains why we still have things like (deprecated template usage) electric blanket: one that was electrified all over (and killed anyone who touched it) would be an "electric" "blanket", but it's not what people mean when they say it. It's a touchy area really. Ha. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For example, a word like software release would fall under deletable under the sum of parts of the CFI? Thanks for the help, Razorflame 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would want to delete that because it is the sum of its parts and has no special idiomatic meaning. A comparable one that was deleted recently is (deprecated template usage) computer mouse. But some people really hate the "sum of parts" thing. A common defence against it is to point out that the combination involves some specific sub-sense of one of the words, e.g. "computer mouse" would not describe a living rodent that got inside your computer. I don't have much time for that sort of argument, personally. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You needn't worry because I was never arguing with you. I was just trying to fully understand it. Razorflame 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

NEVER copy a definition from a copyrighted source, please. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I'll go fix it. Cheers, Razorflame 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've no idea how to do that and doubt I am authorised to do it! Equinox ◑ 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

As an administrator, you are enabled to add me to the list. All you have to do is add me to the list at Wiktionary:AWB/CheckPage under the appropriate subheader. Razorflame 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Firstly there doesn't appear to be any such page. Secondly I don't think I can just rampage about giving people rights without some kind of vote. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I gave you the correct page on your talk page. Razorflame 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you removing the word "From" from etymologies? —Ruakh_TALK 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

To make them the same as all of the other entries in those categories. You don't want two different ways of presenting the etymology, now do you? Razorflame 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why not make the changes the other way? DCDuring TALK 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because it would've been more than 3,300 more changes than the way that I did it. Razorflame 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't you bring it up for discussion? —Ruakh_TALK 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because it didn't seem like a big deal. I've already finished doing all the edits that I am going to make anyways, so I really don't see why it is such a big deal. I only changed 248 pages instead of over 3,100 pages. Razorflame 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't be that big a deal to reverse them then. If you are going to use power tools it's wise to make sure there is agreement. We have many changes of greater substance to make that require human judgments at the individual entry level. Minor formatting inconsistencies are the least of our worries. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If they are already made, why not just leave them the way they are? Razorflame 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That would be a fantastically dangerous precedent wouldn't it! Equinox ◑ 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh? Razorflame 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I object to this, and I am rolling back such changes as have appeared on my watchlist until and unless you get community support for the idea. Ƿidsiþ 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Please wait until the discussion that I started at the Beer parlour is finished first before reverting my edits. Razorflame 08:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I see that you have been reverting anon edits in recent changes. How exactly are you doing it? It makes me wonder. Best wishes, L☺g☺maniac chat? 02:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Global rollback. Razorflame 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

When did we sign-up to global rollback?? I thought that was going to be strictly opt-in for larger wikis. Conrad.Irwin 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. Global rollback can be used on any Wikipedia. I am not misusing it here anyways, so what is the big deal? Razorflame 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No big deal at all, just curious - maybe I was thinking of Global Sysop. Conrad.Irwin 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you probably are thinking about global sysop. That won't be enabled here, as we've got 94 administrators. ;) Razorflame 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be adding quite a lot of Hungarian inflections. I don't know how many inflections the average Hungarian word has, but it seems that there are probably way too many to do manually, so chances are that they will have to be done by a bot. So, could I suggest that instead of making them manually you just ask that someone make a bot in the Grease pit, or make one yourself? (instructions are given on Help:Language inflection bot) This way the recent changes won't be so clogged. --Yair rand 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, don't worry. I can only do a certain amount before I get tired, so don't worry about them clogging up recent changes after I finish the declension of mozi and lazac. Razorflame 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sort of not the point. A bot can do a thousand quicker than you can do 100. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like doing what I am doing, though. It is one of the things that I do on here. If I stopped being able to create these entries, I'll lose a bit of motivation for editing here. :( Razorflame 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well since part of the work that was helping to motivate you turned out to be useless, why don't you try replacing it with working on the Main page redesign, logo vote, or recent changes patrol? Not to mention all the stuff you could be doing helping more with the languages you understand. There really is no shortage of work to be done, so why don't you just start working on more helpful stuff? It would probably be more motivational too :) --Yair rand 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it isn't useless to add Hungarian declensions, as they need to be added anyways. Secondly, I do help out elsewhere. I've made entries for several English and Spanish words overnight, as well as a bunch of other entries, so that isn't the only thing that I do. I help out wherever I can around here, and if that means making form-of entries, I don't mind doing the menial tasks. Razorflame 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't mean that you don't help out elsewhere, I just meant that doing normally bot-done tasks isn't the best use of your time. --Yair rand 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I have fun doing it, then I consider it a good use of my time. Secondly, form-of entries don't always have to be bot-created. That will get us into a situation where we are too dependant on robots to do the menial work. I am a Wikignome, so I don't mind doing the menial stuff. Razorflame 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I wouldn't mind being completely dependent on bots to do the menial work, but if you enjoy doing it, not much reason to stop. --Yair rand 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Warlike" existed before "nonwarlike" did. Then someone decided to put "non-" onto "warlike"; so I'd say the ety is "non + warlike". Equinox ◑ 23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that was what I was thinking. I just wanted to make sure. Cheers, Razorflame 23:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I nearly always check -ize words for -ise forms when I do them. conveyorise exists but seems really very rare (see Google Books). Equinox ◑ 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And by very rare, you mean not worth adding here? Razorflame 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add it if you want. I'd suggest glossing it {{rare}} and perhaps citing it. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I'll leave it be. If you didn't want to add it, since you are more experienced than me, I don't want to risk adding it either. Razorflame 21:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, good job. Then it's an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) anbury. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, looks like it is an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) anbury. Feel free to update it as necessary. Cheers, Razorflame 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you certainly can't use copyrighted stuff just because you say "I took it from here!" That's actually rubbing in the fact that it isn't yours. References can be used to gather facts but not to copy text word for word (hence "copy right"). Equinox ◑ 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't trying to type it in word for word...it was just so technical that I was unable to reduce it down any. Sorry about that. I'll remember this for the future. Thanks again, Razorflame 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, the (deprecated template usage) -ite minerals are all from that. Wikipedia is fairly good about explaining the origin of the name. Usually a discoverer, or just some geologist who is being honoured. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Or some places' name being used ;) Razorflame 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful. We have to keep warning you about this. You can't blindly charge through a list and add every word on it without doing some research and checking. (deprecated template usage) xenophobicness: can you find even one use of this that meets WT:CFI? Please try to be more careful. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks again, Razorflame 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering, how are you eo-0 if you know all the translations you've been adding? --Yair rand 06:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A wonderful site :) http://esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm Cheers, Razorflame 06:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That content is in the public domain? --Yair rand 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Probably. I believe AugPi is also using this site as well. Razorflame 06:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is an obvious copyright statement on the front page of the site, so I doubt it's public domain. You need to go back and remove any copyrighted material you have added. It could get the WMF into legal trouble and goes against our terms of use and licensing policy. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No need to remove anything because I found the same information on the Esperanto Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Razorflame 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I don't have a clue what to do with this. We now have a lot of entries that might be copyright violations. Do you want to bring it up in the BP to see if anyone knows what to do? --Yair rand 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI, bd2412 knows IP law, and (though I shouldn't be volunteering him) can advise re uncopyrightability.​—msh210℠ 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nominal participles are generally considered nouns, not verbs. --Yair rand 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh. I see. Thanks, Razorflame 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you fix up this word for me? I tried to define it, but I failed. It is a Latin word, though. Razorflame 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Instead of creating incomplete entries in languages you don't know, you should request them. The Latin requests page is at WT:RE:la. Other requests pages have similarly structured shortcuts. --EncycloPetey 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't create it. I was trying to help by making an incomplete entry out of a page that originally was vandalism. Razorflame 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gonna try, thanks a lot. --Chapultepec 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problems. Cheers, Razorflame 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, gonna try in the evening, it seemed a bit weird to me, gotta go for work now. =) --Chapultepec 08:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. Cheers, Razorflame 08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The new eo entries that you're adding aren't from the same online dictionary as before, are they? --Yair rand 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. They are from a single translation source that provides single translations for words, which I then go onto other sites to verify. Some of the entries that I am making are also found in the translation tables of certain entries here, which I create them if they are in the translation table. Thanks for wondering, though. Razorflame 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you completely certain that these aren't copyright violations? BTW, the forms of blanka argilo that you added are completely incorrect. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more Esperanto before continuing to add words. --Yair rand 22:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am certain that they are not copyright violations. Single translations cannot be copyrighted according to BD, so they are in the clear. Merely double-checking and verifying that they are correct doesn't infringe upon copyright laws because you aren't using their information, but the single translation information, which is uncopyrightable. Furthermore, I was unsure about those forms. I was contemplating just leaving them uncreated to make sure that they were right, but I figured that I would roll the dice because I thought that they were correct. Sorry if they weren't, Razorflame 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't think we really need blanka argilo at all. We don't have the English white clay and this seems to be just SoP. Does "white clay" mean anything other than clay that is white? And just so you know, eo adjectives always 'agree' with the nouns they are describing, so the correct forms would be blankaj argiloj, blankan argilon, and blankajn argilojn. --Yair rand 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for the information. I will mark them for deletion myself, because of this factor. Cheers, Razorflame 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know of any full (transitive) eo conjugation tables of which all verb forms were made since the recent introduction of {{eo-part-sublemma}} to {{new eo form}}? I just realized I never tested out the new version. --Yair rand 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, try infekti. I made that two days ago, so chances are, it will give you your tests. Also, try inokuli if that one doesn't work. Both have all forms made. Razorflame 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No bugs as far as I can see. --Yair rand 06:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. I'm workong on ekvidi right now, and am going to make all the forms, so let me know if you notice any bugs. Razorflame 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ido nouns are now accelerated. Does it still make sense to have io nouns as part of Darkicebot? I don't really think it's faster... --Yair rand 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW {{io-noun}} does not require |i. --Yair rand 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll get Darkicebot enabled to do Ido nouns for now. There does not seem to be any harm in getting him enabled to do so; it'll only help in the long run. Cheers, Razorflame 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame,

At my admin vote, you expressed some concerns, namely that added tools wouldn’t be helpful. Is there anything specific you’d suggest that I do, or were your thoughts more simply “don’t see much point”? Thanks for your comments!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Look for vandalous edits on the Recent Changes and repair them. That is what SemperBlotto was getting at. Cheers, Razorflame 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for elaborating! Semper et. al. gave more details on my talk page.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Subtle differences. — opiaterein — 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What symbol is that? Razorflame 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

IPA primary stress marker. There's a secondary stress marker aswell, but you shouldn't need it for Esperanto. — opiaterein — 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I take it that there isn't a single key on the keyboard that can add that marker to the IPA, right? Razorflame 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course not, unless there's some kind of IPA keyboard layout of which I'm unaware. That would be kinda neat, actually.... — opiaterein — 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Crap. I guess I'll have to keep it in a handy notepad document then :). Thanks for the help, Razorflame 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem... also be careful , every vowel makes a syllabic nucleus in Esperanto. — opiaterein — 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What exactly do you mean by that? It would be /sun'en'ergio/? Razorflame 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) No, the nucleus is just the heart. The syllable will start with a consonant if there is one. The syllabation would be su-ne-ner-gi-o. since 'gi' is the penultimate syllable and gets the stress, the ˈ precedes it, as in /sunenerˈgio/, /ˈbrilo/, /katslekaˈkado/ (kac-le-ka-do) — opiaterein — 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the help! Razorflame 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

"heliĝi, and all resulting form of entries for these types of irregular verbs are now possible and were made with the purpose of automatically batch creating Esperanto verb forms from a text file with the special character ĝ in them. Code for this is on my bots' userpage." What does this mean? Does that mean the bot can't ordinarily do verb forms with special characters? --Yair rand 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is right. This is because my computers' keyboard does not have the special characters needed to make them, so I am going to have to make special eomake.py for them. Cheers, Razorflame 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can't you just copy the special characters in, or download a Esperanto keyboard? (there's a link to a free one on AugPi's userpage.) --Yair rand 00:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could try to download a free Esperanto keyboard. Unfortunately, I use a command line program that doesn't allow the special characters to be typed in, so I'm going to see if the Esperanto keyboard will work. Razorflame 00:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was going to try out flugi on Darkicebot's feed page, but I realized that "fly" can be either transitive or intransitive. I know absolutely nothing about Esperanto, but I noticed that the conjugation table changes if it is intransitive. So what do you do in this case? Ultimateria 04:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think ekflugi is the intransitive version of this verb, so I think flugi is the transitive verb. Razorflame 04:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's fed! Ultimateria 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And it's processed. Will be added as soon as my both flag is given. Razorflame 04:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this correct? Shouldn't this be itala lingvo? --Yair rand 06:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it shouldn't be itala lingvo because Itala is a synonym of Itala lingvo, and Italian is capitalized. I am pretty sure that it is correct, but I might be wrong. Razorflame 07:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Odd. I figured it would be like angla lingvo. (we strangely have both an entry on itala and Itala) BTW, are you trying to add all the eo pronunciations manually? I kind of thought that eventually someone would build a bot to do all the pronunciations for Esperanto, Ido, Lojban and all other phonetically consistent, penultimate-emphasis conlangs. Probably rather complicated, but doing it all manually seems virtually impossible. --Yair rand 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I'm just doing the pronunciations for the headwords. Razorflame 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame. Although I don't understand what exactly You plan to do, I don't have objections, as I suppose it will makes some sense. Matthias Buchmeier 11:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the OK and good to go message. You can see the messages at User:Darkicebot and User:Darkicebot/Feed. Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do it right the first time and I won't be tempted to make abrasive jokes that you take as personal attacks. — opiaterein — 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And don't make comments like this to me again. You are not better than everyone else just because you know pronunciation. Don't treat me as such. Razorflame 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I make no claim to be better than you for any reason. However, if you continue to add incorrect information, I will continue to harrass you about it. Others have made similar, though more polite, complaints before. The optimistic think you will learn eventually, but I don't have their patience. — opiaterein — 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And just like that, I stop adding pronunciations to my entries that I create. If you think you can add them better than I can, I'll just let you from now on. Good luck! Razorflame 21:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice about the eo verbs. I'm trying to work on Wiktionary:About Esperanto at the moment and I've made a rough draft here. Do you know if changes to the "About" pages have to go through any process to be changed? Otherwise I'll just move the additions to WT:AEO and continue the work there. (BTW, just in case a solution isn't found for what to do about the verbs with special characters, I'm working on a template that adds suffixes automatically, so it's just a matter of copy-pasting 60 times) --Yair rand 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not that I know of, but I've only been here a few months (about the WT:AEO). It would probably be best to ask at the BP first before moving it to WT:AEO.

Great news about the suffix thing! Hope it gets implemented soon! Cheers, Razorflame 06:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Template:new eo verb form is working so far. I'm going to try to make sure it works with all the forms by testing the rest of the daŭrigi forms. --Yair rand 06:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

All forms tested and working. There's still the problem of flooding the recent changes but the only solution to that that I can see is doing it in short bursts and waiting for a while before doing the next bunch. It's also slightly exhausting to click ctrl+pgdn>alt+,>ctrl+v>alt+s 59 times, but whatever. --Yair rand 07:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the update! Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Images are simple here. You dictate the size you want them to be in your user preferences (Special:Preferences) so we don't ever specify a size. And you don't need to specify |right|, because they all go to the right, and doing so makes them mess up entry layout anyway. — opiaterein — 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

First, read what I just wrote on your talk page. Second, I didn't know that. Now I do, so I will be more careful in the future. Razorflame 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Contrary to what you seem to have thought it actually does exist. Just check the first few pages of results on b.g.c and you'll see :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

B.G.C? What is that? Thanks also, for double-checking my work. I was pretty sure that it was a word, but when undetach wasn't made, it got me confused, and when an online dictionary said that it didn't exist, it caused me to doubt myself. Thanks again, Razorflame 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

books.google.com 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that now. Thanks! Cheers, Razorflame 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You do know that you can write special characters (ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ) in the edit screen by using the box at the bottom, right? I just noticed that the note you put on the bot user page had the non-circumflexed characters instead... --Yair rand 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that. I'll change them now. Cheers, Razorflame 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw the new codes for eo forms starting with special characters but I don't think that will be very practical for most verbs as there are a lot that have special characters in the middle. Do you think there might be a way to have separate input fields so you could just put the URL Encoding versions of the special characters (ĉ=%C4%89, ĝ=%C4%9D, ĥ=%C4%A5, ĵ=%C4%B5, ŝ=%C5%9D, ŭ=%C5%AD) into the title of the page and the content could just include a regular subst'd template that switches letters from normal to +circumflex? I don't really know how this thing works, but there's got to be a way to have it do special characters without having a text file for each. --Yair rand 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know that it wouldn't work very well for the verbs, but thanks for thinking about the bot :). Hmm...I could try typing in the URL encoded versions of the special characters to see if it works with the bot, but I won't do it with a verb until I know it works because that would be too much deletion ;). I'll give it a shot and see if it works. Cheers, Razorflame 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, if there's no simple solution, I suppose you could just make a bot-subtemplate which you could transclude in the codes, change it to the name of the verb base for each verb, and use the URL encoded versions for the page title. Not the ideal solution, but at least it would allow for somewhat simple verb creation. --Yair rand 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it. Thanks for the suggestions, but I am going to just let it be for now. I'll continue working on trying to make it possible, but for now, it just isn't possible at this point in time. I'll work as hard as I can to get it working as soon as possible. Cheers, Razorflame 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, add to the top of your make scripts:

sys.argv = sys.argv.replace("{c}", u"ĉ").replace("{g}",u"ĝ")

or something similar, then you can tell it to do {c}heers and it will do ĉheers. It's really not that difficult. Conrad.Irwin 01:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Bot fixed now to enable the use of special characters! Razorflame 10:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Darkicebot is adding eo forms in the wrong place when the page already exists. See this edit. Did you remember when building this bot to change it from putting words in the position as if they were Italian to Esperanto? It seems to be putting them in the wrong places (not alphabetical order). --Yair rand 00:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, unfortunately, it won't add it in alphabetical order, but AutoFormat automatically comes and moves them, so it isn't that big of a deal, but if you really want Darkicebot to not do that, then I'll have to ask Conrad.Irwin to help me make it addend the entry alphabetically. Cheers, Razorflame 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay. I didn't notice that Autoformat fixes it. --Yair rand 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, when it addends the entry, it adds a Request for AutoFormat fix, so AutoFormat comes around and fixes them. Cheers, Razorflame 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you added hyphenation information at multi-word terms like jugo de limón? As it is always acceptable to break a term at a space (or existing hyphen), I'd imagine hyphenation information is only relevant on the individual word entries, in this case at jugo and limón (NB: Unlike hyphenation, pronunciation can actually change when joining words). I've tentatively put this recommendation at WT:PRON but if there's a good reason, I'd happily accomodate one. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uncountable noun forms need to have |unc=yes in the eo-form of template so that it doesn't show the word "singular". (You can add |unc=yes to new eo form and it will add it to the eo-form of template.) --Yair rand 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Will do in the future. Thanks for the heads-up! Cheers, Razorflame 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this correct? eo-wp seems to say that month names start with lowercase letters and we already had oktobro. (I probably should have thought of this before I added forms.) --Yair rand 06:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was listed on the Appendix for words from a well-respected institution, so I figured that it was correct. Cheers, Razorflame 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did it list both Oktobro and oktobro? It's possible that they are both used, in which case we should probably have both forms for all months. --Yair rand 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it listed both forms. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Razorflame, great to hear that User:Darkicebot is working properly now! Perhaps it'd be a sensible idea to stop pestering User:Opiaterein and User:Yair Rand; I can imagine them getting tired of the idea quite quickly, and if you lose their support it's going to be even harder to get things done. There are better ways of keeping track of words that need to be done than asking people, the best is probably to keep a list of what you've done, and compare it with the Esperanto categories from time to time. Conrad.Irwin 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the kind advice! Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Or, even better, you can track Esperanto by Visviva's RC by language tool. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for the help :) Cheers, Razorflame 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another simple way is to use the whatlinkshere for Templates. I personally use that feature for my conjugation bot, as it lists them chronologically (although a flaw in that is that some can get hidden, if e.g. a French section is added to a previously-existing section). I might add something like this to Help:Language inflection bot--Rising Sun 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for the help :). It is much appreciated! Although I would prefer if people used my bots' feed function :) Razorflame 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

So would I, but as the owner of the bot account, it's pretty much your duty/problem to feed it yourself. On the other hand, I might start "pestering" other French contributors to feed DRB. --Rising Sun 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I realize that. Thanks for the lessons in how to track peoples' contributions in a specific language. Rising Sun, add Conrad.Irwin's suggestion to the help page for Inflection bots as well, as it is also a really good one. Cheers, Razorflame 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would add it, but I'm not so sure what he means. I could write sth like "don't pester other people" to it, but it sounds silly. And how to paraphrase "keep a list of what you've done, and compare it with the Esperanto categories from time to time", I'm not sure - in fact, I'm not so sure what exactly Conrad meant by that comment. Anyway, that help page is on my to-do list, so I'm likely to go back to it later. --Rising Sun 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, what I meant was add the website he linked me to :). Razorflame 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can leave the entries that are already done, User:AutoFormat will (eventually) take care of them. Conrad.Irwin 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Though you'll need to fix the ones with two templates, still, just don't need to add it to any others. Conrad.Irwin 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know. Cheers. However, I believe AutoFormat doesn't work on bots' edits.... Razorflame 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not in real-time, but it parses the xml dumps and will fix problems it finds in them. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does that include the duplicate template that Darkicebot added? Razorflame 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, sadly not. Conrad.Irwin 21:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problems. I should have it done pretty quickly. Cheers, Razorflame 21:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

How does one make it for one's own username? :) --Ivan Štambuk 05:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got Merlissimo on IRC to make the tool for created pages and (s)he made it here. However, it might not work right now because the Zeus toolserver is down. Not sure what that meant technically, but it apparently makes the tool not work properly. You might want to go and try it out anyways. You might have a different result. Razorflame 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks :) Doesn't seem to work now, hopefully it will later.. --Ivan Štambuk 05:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problems. Cheers, Razorflame 05:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not trust you to add Telugu words. Kindly desist. — opiaterein — 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can add Telugu words if I want to. I'm not doing anything wrong by making them, and you cannot say that I can't make Telugu words. That's ownership. Razorflame 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get the information you add from? Conrad.Irwin 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

From translation tables on articles for simple words like blood and beast. Razorflame 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Be extremely careful to verify translations added in this manner, which is why User:Tbot requires that the telagu wiktionary has the word too - our translations tables are not reliable enough to build dictionaries from (though they are probably ok to use for personal reference). Conrad.Irwin 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fine. I'll stop doing Telugu. Razorflame 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The best way to stop someone adding words is to add them yourself first - that's the technique that I am using for Italian. SemperBlotto 17:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame,

You seem to have some overwhelming urge to perform mindless tasks that you don't think require any knowledge. I suggest you learn to suppress that urge, or else someone (probably Opiaterein) will end up perma-blocking you, and I for one am not likely to unblock you again. (Nobody here is perfect; we all have to use guesswork sometimes to accomplish things. For example, resolving an RFV often involves some guesswork about exactly what sense is intended by a given quotation. But you have to back it up with some real knowledge, or else you will invariably end up creating more work for the people who do know something. I mean, seriously, creating entries in scripts you can't even read? How can that possibly seem like a good idea?)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind message. This is the kind of critisism that needs to be given out more often. I will stop creating all entries in all languages other than Esperanto, Finnish, Italian, English, Spanish, Hungarian, French, and German from now on. Finnish and Hungarian will be only form-of entries. Thanks again, Razorflame 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are already not sticking to what you claim you will be doing. Over and over, people have asked you to stop various activities for which you did not have the requisite knowledge, and time and again you have made promises that were then broken. The problem is thus two-fold: (1) you are creating bad entries without a supporting knowledge, (2) you are making promises you don't keep. Witness, for example, your claim above and subsequent addition of Ido entries. This wouldn't be such a problem if you hadn't already created a history your yourself in the two aforementtioned issues. --EncycloPetey 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I forgot to mention Ido in my list of languages that I add. Ido seems to be very similar to Esperanto, and I double-check every word that I add in Ido with 3+ sites before I add it. Otherwise, I will stick to the languages mentioned. The other languages mentioned are all mostly for form of entries. Razorflame 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The fact remains that you said one thing, but did another, and not for the first time. Whether this is forgetfulness, deception, or merely careless error in the original statement, it does not reflect well on you or your work here.

Checking with on-line sites is not at all the same as knowledge of the language. There are many, many sites out there that have mindlessly copied what others have said, but which introduce their own errors. Consider the oft-stated (but incorrect) "fact" that Eskimos have 1000 words for "snow" (or some other less ridiculous number). This erroneous "fact" started with a misunderstanding of what one person stated, and has now grown into an often (mis)quoted bit of trivia. Even print sources are not immune to the copying of errors, and I have a friend who did a nice research paper on the subject. So, checking with 3+ sites is not by any means a guarantee of correctness. The maxim at Wiktionary is to stick to working in languages you know about. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand slightly the structure of Esperanto, and I know that internet sources are not immune from copying of errors. I also have two text dictionaries that I use to reference and double-check/verify the work that I do on my Esperanto terms that I add. Cheers, Razorflame 18:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

you're not listening to what's being said (also not for the first time). It's not a question of on-line versus print. Print translation dictionaries have the same error-copying problems that on-line dictionaries do. I have one Latin and one Galician dictionary in particular that I don't trust because they contain significant numbers of errors. I can't rely on them except as a first source when I'm at a loss from more trustworthy sources. I would never consider adding information to Wiktionary based on either of those two dictionaries, because the chances that they are wrong is too high. If you're working from translating dictionaries, you're bound for problems. --EncycloPetey 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your explanation! I will look very hard for as much verifiable and reliable information as I possibly can before adding any new Esperanto words. I will only work with Esperanto, English, and form ofs for Finnish and Hungarian from now on. Razorflame 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) the point is valid, but I think a basic entry is better than none, right? Such entries should be marked with {{attention}} but if it's a way of getting more words in more languages, great! My tip would be to stick to the Latin alphabet. Other than than, I need help with my Ido list User:Mglovesfun/To do#Ido and since Ido has no irregular nouns, you can't go wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A large part of the problem is that for many languages we have zero regular or even semi-regular editors. Leaving iffy entries with {{attention}} for months or years (some of t-bot's entries do sit for years with no attention) is largely irresponsible. — opiaterein — 14:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now don't take this the wrong but I'm curious as to why you seem so "abrasive" (possibly not the best word to use) towards certain comments? example: the "Telugu" section above Also on that note, first off, Opiaterein did not say you couldn't make entries he said he does not trust you to (i.e you shouldn't). Are you like, of some religion that has very particular beliefs/instructions about certain things or just excessively pious? (again no offence, but I'm just trying to make sense of things). Finally, while this might sound a bit harsh you might want to "harden up" a bit and try not to be so sensitive to criticism of your work; as they say (deprecated template usage) shit happens, (deprecated template usage) life's a bitch etc. etc. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thank you for the kind advice. I will try to "harden up" and make myself tougher towards criticism. Thanks, Razorflame 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you don't seem to be too bad anyway ^_^ I mean like, you didn't "freak" when replying to me or anything. Also, one thing I forgot to say: consider reading WT:AGF if you have not already done so (although IMHO parts of it are baloney). 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I had already read it, and just re-read it again. Thanks for the information, Razorflame 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's generally not a good idea to replace redirects with blank pages. You don't need to worry about these though; I'm just about to make entries for them. --Yair rand 05:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know it isn't. I was going to make entries for them myself, but got distracted and eventually just forgot about them. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Cheers, Razorflame 17:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you had started some topic categories for Ido, which is good, because a loooot of languages are missing simple stuff like that. If you can find any of those to make, keep it up. We also have a long list of English nouns that aren't even in the English nouns category that really could use some attention, and the ever-shrinking Category:Translation table header lacks gloss. We're makin good headway on that one. But, I think the English nouns and topic categories are more pressing. — opiaterein — 19:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I started making the topic categories for Ido because I was starting to get some translations for some basic Ido words that would help expand our dictionary. I'll definitely look into the other two things, and I'll add both to my To-do list for English. Thanks again for the helpful advice, Razorflame 19:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

All three example sentences had at least one thing very wrong with them. I think it would be best for you to not add example sentences yet. — opiaterein — 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why was the Darkicebot feed page deleted? Where am I supposed to feed new verbs now? --Yair rand 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is now restored. Feel free to feed them new verbs now :) Razorflame 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haven't we been over something like this in the past? — opiaterein — 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Slovene, Russian, and Icelandic? I've told you enough times and other editors have told you enough times. You have been blocked for three days. — opiaterein — 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocking me for things like this is not appropriate, and you know it. Razorflame 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm still finding things that you've messed up in a variety of languages. Others have warned you, I've warned you, and you're still not getting it. So the block just gives me a nice break from having to clean up after you. — opiaterein — 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only language that I am going to be editing from now on is Esperanto, as I know that I don't make many mistakes in that lange and Ido, because I know that I can find plenty of sources for that language. Furthermore, you seem to like to delete words that I make that I know are correct, such as malkolora. I had several different pages use that word in a sentence, and I also found it used (but not created) on the Esperanto Wikipedia. Furthermore, my bot does the Esperanto form of entries, and your bot has no reason to do so, as my bot had the right to do so before yours did. You can't even run your bot for Esperanto form ofs yet because you need to be approved to do so. Razorflame 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A bot doesn't have to be approved for every little thing it does. My bot is primarily for adding inflected forms and converting templates. Also, I've included pronunciations in my Esperanto verb-forms, which yours doesn't. I couldn't find malkolora in any of my official Esperanto sources. So I axed it. — opiaterein — 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

See this edit. Russian nouns don't have "masculine dative" and "feminine dative", just "dative". --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, thanks for the help. I won't be making any more of these in the future, but thanks for the help, nonetheless. Razorflame 19:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can always create any plurals for forms that I make, if you like. Just follow my edits. They're only French and English, which are easy. Plus, I never do mistakes, so you'll know that the plurals will be correct. --Rising Sun 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't really think that requesting de-bot-flagging was really necessary, but I suppose nothing can be done about that now. I don't think that Opiaterein's pronunciation-adding is really helpful, because they'll really all need to be added by a bot someday (which would be extremely useful if you want to consider working on it) so adding pronunciations for just some words seems futile. BTW, it's really not a good idea to respond to incivility with incivility, and I suggest you read/reread Wiktionary:Civility. Opiaterein's blocking might not have been justified, but trying to take action against it doesn't sound like a good idea. --Yair rand 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fine. I won't take action again him this time. Razorflame 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Creating Azeri entries, after (again) promising to work only in Esperanto has left you with a longer block this time. You may find yourself blocked for longer and longer each time. You continue to create entries for languages you don't know anything about after admins have repeatedly warned you not to do so, and after making multiple promises that you won't do it anymore. Enough is enough. --EncycloPetey 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for giving me the time to think things over. I've decided to just help out where help is needed and that I will only make entries for languages that are listed on my babel page from now on. Cheers, Razorflame 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm, by hu-0 do you mean that you don't understand Hungarian at all or you understand some but just less the hu-1? Really, if you don't at least understand the basics of the language it's probably best not to edit in it. --Yair rand 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand a little Hungarian, but not enough to warrant an hu-1 tag. Razorflame 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello RF. spme questions about Ido verbs:

1. are they all regular?
2. why are some forms in Template:io-conj in bold?
3. (if the answer to 1) is YES) is your bot going to create the conjugated forms? If not, mine could very easily do it. Or maybe I could write the code for yours to run
4. (if the answer to 1) is NO) A pity. I thought the idea of conlangs is to be simple...but is your bot going to create the conjugated forms? If not, mine could very easily do it. Or maybe I could write the code for yours to run — This unsigned comment was added by Rising Sun (talk • contribs).

Can I just point out that Darkicebot was de-bot-flagged since the job was taken over by opibot. The best person to ask about the io-conj template would probably be AugPi, since he made the template. --Yair rand 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, they are all regular, even the ones with the stems that end in -I.

   No clue. The maker of the conjugation template probably meant some emphasis with them, but I don't see any reason why they should be there.

   Yes, I plan on having my bot making them. I just need someone to make the templates like {{new eo form}} and {{eo form of}} to make it easier for the bot to make them. Razorflame 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I realize that I'd have to have my bot run for the bot flag status again, but I would like my bot to do the conjugations for it. Razorflame 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

De-botted? That seems a bit over the top! I reckon the new bot vote would probably fail though, as apparently you've pissed some people off since the first one. No offence, of course, just a word of warning. I'll see what I can do about the Ido templates. I don't know the language, so I'll probably be no help, but I'll see. Thanks for the replies --Rising Sun 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I requested it debotted because I did not think that I would find another use for it. Apparently, I was wrong. Don't worry, I know that I've pissed some people off, but I am pretty sure that even though I have done that, that people will still see me for a good bot operator. Razorflame 21:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a clue about Ido verbs, but I made {{io-verb form}} to try to start a template. It only needs the base, not the suffix. --Yair rand 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm, what is the difference between "past" and "present perfect"? --Yair rand 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly the same as a past and present perfect in Spanish, I believe. Razorflame 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are they in fact different things? If they need separate definitions, that could make the template more difficult. --Yair rand 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

They are separate definitions, but I've already solved the problem. See fixigis. Razorflame 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the template doesn't require the suffix. It only requires the base (meaning do {{io-form of|fixig}} instead of {{io-form of|fixig|ir}}) --Yair rand 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't really matter because my bot won't get the bit. Razorflame 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's got to have been one of the shortest votes Wiktionary ever had. Oh well, looks like we're going to have to wait until someone who knows Ido joins Wiktionary before having those forms done. --Yair rand 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

lol, definitely the shortest. But maybe if it had run the full 2 weeks, it would have passed (but please, don't try the vote again!! At least, not for a while - next year at least). Don't get disheartend though. --Rising Sun 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just have your bot do them. You seem to be more respected here, which I guess makes all the difference. Razorflame 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's probably not a good idea either. Imagine if someday someone who actually knows Ido comes on to Wiktionary and it turns out we did all of the forms wrong. Now if that were to happen to someone else, it would be hilarious. :D --Yair rand 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Cheers, Razorflame 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd need your help if my bot were to do them though. Can you email me the Python and text and other necessary files that you use? Having a quick look at Category:Ido verbs, it should take about one work day to have all the forms uploaded. And a few months of study to check that they're correct or not! So, I'll do it, and will blame you and run away as soon as an Ido-speaker turns up. --Rising Sun 22:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I think that we should just leave them for now. Better safe than sorry. Razorflame 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chemistry is not really my domain but I made a little search. In inorganic chemistry the term is ένυδρο άλας (I found it here and in w:el:Άλας. It seems that the term used in organic chemistry (in inorganic too) is υδρίτης. See this (i.e. the photo (δ)). The Greek term for the compound carbohydrate is υδατάνθρακας. --flyax 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the help :). If you haven't added them to the entries already, I'll add them :). Cheers, Razorflame 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not! The rule states that stressed vowels carry an accent, except in case of a stressed penultimate syllable of words terminating in s or n. Matthias Buchmeier 10:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for the information. Razorflame 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The best way, of course, is to go and live in the country where the language is spoken - this forces you to learn the language fast. This, of course, is not normally an option.

Second best is to visit your local library and see if they have courses you can borrow (in the UK you will normally have to pay a little if they contain tapes or CDs). Stick the tape/CD in the car and just play it as you drive - words and phrases slowly sink in by osmosis. While at the library, see if they have foreign-language books (novels and short stories) - sometimes you can get dual-language books with English on one side and the foreign language on the other.

You can always go on a course at your local college - but these can be quite expensive.

Get a foreign girlfriend / boyfriend (delete as applicable) - you might learn more than the language.

Good luck. SemperBlotto 18:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thank you very much for your very helpful advice :). I'm probably going to go look for some English ---> other language dictionaries and start working through those. I will definitely try to follow your advice. I'll try my best. Thanks again for the help, Razorflame 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not a good idea. Too little time since the last vote. --Yair rand 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what the problem is. My bot would add all of the forms that are listed on the conjugation tables. If there are forms missing from the table, then they can be added to the table and my bot could then get updated and add those newly added forms to the verbs. Either way, I'm not sure what the big deal is because the bot would help create the pages that would take too long of a time to create manually. Razorflame 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and it seems the bot is still adding the unnecessary suffix to the template. --Yair rand 20:23, 7

December 2009 (UTC)

Will fix now before it makes any more pages. Thanks for the catch, Razorflame 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Following discussion on where I find Italian words . . . Here are all the lowercase words in the Ido Wikipedia article about hidrogeno (hydrogen) - just as an example. SemperBlotto 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

abundanta acidi aktuale amoniako aparas aquo atomala bruliva di dil e ed elektrolizo elementi elemento en esas gaso hidrogeno ica industriale kapabla kemiala kom kombinata kombusteblo kompozi kun l la laboratorii maxim metali nombro normala obtenas obtenesas ol omna onu per por precipue preske produkto qua quale reaktar reakto senkolora senodora steli temperaturo tre universo uzesas

• Note - many of the blue links are false - i.e. they do not contain an Ido section.

Thanks for the help. Cheers, Razorflame 17:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, that #fff was a mistake (despite the edit summary, which in fact referred back to the previous edit). I meant black. Sorry.​—msh210℠ 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Cheers, Razorflame 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. 1, minor: {{pt-noun-m}} is the wrong template to use. It's deprecated by {{pt-noun}}
2. 2, serious: Plural "salmãos"? Really? — opiaterein — 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

   1: OK, I'll use pt-noun in the future.

   2: It is a learning process. I learnt from my mistake already. There is no need to rub it in my face. Razorflame 22:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a need when you continue to add things that you're unsure of. — opiaterein — 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you've noticed, I haven't added anything that I am unsure of except for that edit, so I don't see what the big deal is. It isn't like I completely botched the article. Razorflame 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can we "notice" your level of certainty? All we know is (1) sometimes you're right (due to knowledge? due to chance?), (2) sometimes you're wrong, and (3) you don't mind #2. —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do mind #2. If something is wrong, I'd like to know what it is so that I can fix it and make sure it never happens in the future. That is the way that I learn best. If I make a mistake, I figure out what was wrong, why it was wrong, and what I can do to make sure that it never happens again. As for my level of certainty, I know that for some languages, I am fairly certain that what I am doing is correct (mainly Ido and Esperanto). For other languages, I've actually asked some native speakers to help me out with the double-checking of my entry that I add to make sure that it is right and so that it is right. I work very hard for this Wiktionary, and I really like working here. Razorflame 23:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm content to give you the benefit of the doubt. We appreciate the hard work. We're all learning, aren't we. --Rising Sun talk? 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, could you please slow down a little? You are flooding RecentChanges which makes it hard to watch for vandalism. Thanks! L☺g☺maniac ☃ 20:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Sorry for flooding the recent changes. I'll slow down now :). Once again, sorry. Cheers, Razorflame 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your bot was blocked for running without authorization. You were blocked for abusive language with the same foot-stomping histrionics that have characterized your time here. You need to develop some maturity and self-restraint to interact successfully on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not mess with the ISO templates. There was nothing wrong with the gl template. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I did was remove the wikilink from the template because whenever someone substitutes it, it is wikilinked, which when used as a header, isn't very appealing, but alright, I'll leave them alone now :) Razorflame 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "appeal" is not the reason it's linked. Removing links in templates whose purpose you don't undersatnd is always a bad idea. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok then. I'll remember this in the future. Thanks for the help, Razorflame 03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

At WT:LANGCODE#Language code templates you can see why there are ISO templates linked by default. --Daniel. 23:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove contextual glosses from definitions. They are necessary when the English translation has more than one definition. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll remember that in the future. Thanks for the help, Razorflame 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could I suggest that you not add entries in languages that you don't have a thorough understanding of (like Hungarian)? I know it's extremely frustrating to know a word in a language and not be able to add it, but it's kind of necessary to withhold the quality of the Wiktionary. (I was on Wiktionary for months while trying to learn Esperanto, trying to resist adding words in a language I don't fully understand, so I know full well how difficult it is.) There's a decent chance someone might end up blocking you again if you keep this up. I think some of the admins are getting pretty annoyed. --Yair rand 06:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been making Hungarian form-of entries for more than a few months now, and Panda10 said that I was making them correctly, so I honestly don't see what the problem is. Razorflame 06:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, there is a problem. You keep promising us that you will only work in a few languages, but you keep breaking that promise and assuming it's just fine for you to work in other languages as well because you think you know them well enough. Stop breaking your promises. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 15:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd tend to side with Razorflame here; adding form-ofs for a language you don't speak is okay IMO, but you do need to be sure that you know a least to some extent what way certain kinds of nouns/adjectives/etc decline/conjugate in that language so that you can pick out screwed up inflections if and when they appear on pages. Alternatively, you could have a book or page on the internet (right here, for example!) with which you can check the declension. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've learnt the different conjugations over the past few months when making the form of entries. I haven't made a single mistake in the form of entries in over 1,000 form-of entries made. Anyways, don't worry about that, Razorflame 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not to take sides or anything, but Razorrlame did promise me yesterday over IRC that he would only work in Ido and Esperanto, at least for now. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

not made a single mistake? Now how would you know if something is a mistake or not, when you don't know the language? Talking from experience: on a personal level, I make mistakes with French declension and conjugations sometimes, and sometimes I miss them, and sometimes I correct mistakes...and I've seen other "advanced" French-language editors do the same. BTW, I can't believe that you've "learnt the different conjugations over the past few months " from using Wiktionary either... but this is enough Razorflame bashing from me. --Rising Sun talk? 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

After talking with Panda10, I have ceased making Hungarian form of entries. Hope this solves this problem. Cheers, Razorflame 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, from what I can see Veratrum nigrum is a (deprecated template usage) species not a (deprecated template usage) genus. Veratrum alone would be the genus. Compare (deprecated template usage) Ramalina siliquosa. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right. Me and my sleep deprived brain ;). If you haven't already fixed them, I'll go ahead and fix them as they are indeed species. Please let me know if you've already fixed them, though. Razorflame 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh, not to worry ;) , I already fixed it. BTW, in case you didn't know, the second entry I linked to is just something that I made a while back, which I just showed you as an example in case you had insufficient experience with taxons. You seem to be okay though. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm decent in my taxonomy knowledge, but not great. There is always more room for improvement. Razorflame 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame, could you correct the spelling of Portuguese in the following, most of them are your mistakes:

• universal
• hidrato
• sedimento
• organismos
• sedimentos
• citocina
• citocinas
• estrela dupla
• visibilidade
• plasmídeo
• carcinógeno
• carcinógenos
• salmão
• mediação
• intervenção
• universalidade
• universalidades
• invisibilidade

Thanks. Conrad.Irwin 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

And please, don't apologize saying you'll do better next time. You won't. I hate to be the one spelling this out for you, but I don't think you've got what it takes to be a good Wiktionarian, son. Find something else to do. Fishing, for example. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Universales? Estrelas dupla?? Mediaçãoes??? Intervençãoes???? Really????? — opiaterein — 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I cannot fix them because I don't know what is wrong with them. If I knew what was wrong with them, I would fix them, but since I don't know what is wrong with them, I cannot fix them. Razorflame 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, you can not edit them because that would be a breach of your recent self-imposed contract. If no one minds, I would advise reverting/deleting some of Razorflame's edit's in languages he knows virtually nothing about. --Yair rand 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Most of them have already been fixed by native speakers. I contacted Jyril about some of the Finnish entries I made, as well as Hekaheka, and I contacted Bogorm about the Bulgarian entries I made, and I contacted SemperBlotto and Barmar about the Italian entries I made, and all of them have already been fixed by them. Razorflame 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I think Vahagn got them for you, the error (in every one) was spelling "Portuguese" "Portugese" - I didn't know about the quality of the entry beyond the fact that you created a new language on WT:STATS. Conrad.Irwin 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Sorry about it. Razorflame 20:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised AutoFormat didn't correct them. It does with other easy typos: Cojugation--> Conjugation, rench--> French, english-->English etc. --77.237.0.189 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, who has been checking your Romani entries? --EncycloPetey 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made one Romani entry that was checked by Baron Saint something or another...(can't remember the full name). Cheers, Razorflame 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can Baron de Saint-Rémy check your Romani entries, since he doesn't know that language either? --EncycloPetey 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

He has been editing in Romani for some time, though, and I figure that he just has not updated his babel yet to include them. Anyways, I only made one Romani entry, and he checked it, and that is enough for me. Since the 19th of December, haven't made another Romani entry. Razorflame 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whether you like them or not, you do not remove or otherwise edit other people's comments, especially without their permission. You have done it before, but you will not do it again. See also consequences. — opiaterein — 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

On user talk pages, the owner of the talk page has the right to remove any comment made on the page. See w:Wikipedia:Talk page. Razorflame 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is not Wikipedia. — opiaterein — 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

(I know this is irrelevant, but even the Wikipedia talk page policy that you linked to does not say that users may remove comments from their talk pages.) --Yair rand 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame. I just answered to your question 9 months ago at w:simple.User talk:Razorflame/Archive 19 #Xqbots interwiki maintainance -Xqt 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks very much for the information :). Cheers, Razorflame 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

interwiki.py -help displays all options and possible generators. Greetings -Xqt 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. "That which does not grow" would be a noun, not an adjective. My definition is what you'd see in "the thing that does not grow". Equinox ◑ 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. That makes sense to me. Thanks for the help! The sentence just didn't sound grammatically correct to me, so I just fixed it to make it so, but in the process, it seems that I broke the definition. I'll leave those alone now :). Thanks again for the help, Razorflame 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Most defintiions here are not sentences. They do not need to be. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I realized that before you even said it here. Thanks again for the help, Razorflame 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

In User:Razorflame/Contract (now User:Razorflame/Promise), I've made a proposal edit. Please revert it if you disagree with it; it is your userspace. I applaud this contract effort in spite of the negative reaction that the contract has in part generated on its talk page.

I would very much recommend that you stick to the promise that you have made in the contract, the promise that you will edit only in English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish, and that, by implication, you will avoid editing in Italian, Hungarian and Portuguese. --Dan Polansky 22:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I have already planned to stick to the contract as noted on that page. Furthermore, if you look further down on the list, it says that I can begin to edit in other languages when I can prove that I know the language well enough to edit in it here. Thanks again for the positive feedback, Razorflame 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made one more proposal edit, removing the point four, which contradicted the point one or presented a trapdoor that could work around the point one. Again, revert me if you disagree. --Dan Polansky 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted my proposal, which is your right. But then, as long as the point four remains, the contract contains two contradictory sentences:

• 1. "I may only create or edit entries that are in English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish."
• 4. "In order to edit in other languages, I must prove that I know a sufficient amount of knowledge in the language by having an editor(s) that will verify whether or not I have a sufficient enough of knowledge to edit in that language."

The point one says that you are not allowed to edit in other languages, while the point four says that, under certain conditions, you are allowed to do so.

The point four has to be removed, or else the contract is mere pretense with a trapdoor. --Dan Polansky 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Dan Polansky on this. Point 4 makes the entire thing meaningless. --Yair rand 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There needs to be some way that I can be allowed to make edits in other languages in the future. That is the main reason why I reverted your edit. I am willing to work through this to help make a clause that could support the editing of other languages in the future, which was the entire point of the fourth condition. I am ready and willing to brainstorm ideas of how we can incorporate this, though. Razorflame 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How about only editing in new languages if the community approves it based on your contributions to a wiki in that language? Seems like that would work... --Yair rand 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about this: In order to edit in new languages, I have to prove it by writing sentences in the language that I want to edit in without a single mistake? Otherwise, your idea is good as well. Razorflame 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. We can't verify how you came up with the sentence, or whether you translated it at all. — opiaterein — 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re "There needs to be some way that I can be allowed to make edits in other languages in the future." This should not be a problem, as the contract or pledge or promise has no term--for how long you make it--and no term of notice--how long in advance you have to notify of a change in it. You can simply change the promise at some future point. Put differently, you do not promise to never change the promise in future.

The contract or pledge should only state the rules that you have willingly chosen to abide by at a given time point or a short-term time-frame.

Of course, if in the future you decide to change the promise to include more languages, you should better negotiate that change with Wiktionary editors at that future point.

For the present moment, you should only promise unambiguously and without any backdoor that:

• You will create and edit only English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish entries, and that, by implication, you will avoid creating and editing Italian, Hungarian and Portuguese entries.

Therefore, I ask you to remove the point four to make the promise meaningful rather than self-contradictory.

--Dan Polansky 22:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made rather drastic proposal changes in the contract, with the understanding that you will revert me and mercilessly edit if you disagee. --Dan Polansky 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense to me. Cheers, Razorflame 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to work more slowly and pay attention to what you are doing. In this edit, you linked to Esperanto, when you meant Spanish. You also classified trepidly as an Adjective instead of an adverb by using the wrong inflection template. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll slow down and pay attention to what I'm doing from now on. Thanks for the helpful advice, Razorflame 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have marked the definition with {{botany}}. This means that the word is used solely as jargon by botanists who speak Esperanto. That seems unlikely. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think of it, yes, that does sound unlikely. I'll remove it. Cheers, Razorflame 22:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) Razorflame 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it strikes me that what you are doing so well for Ido needs doing to most of the nouns on this page - i.e. replacing the inflection line with {{en-noun}} or {{en-noun|-}} - do you think you'd be able to do something with AWB for these? Conrad.Irwin 18:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think I would definitely be able to do something with these :). Cheers, Razorflame 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at these, I hope that you discriminate those that need other changes like different header, the headword as header without template (plurals), etc. Is AWB well suited for that? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

When I work through the Ido nouns, I usually add stuff like pronunciations for any Esperanto entry that is there, as well as various other general fixes, so yes, AWB can be used for this, as an alternative to working in general. Razorflame 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I ought to get myself checked out on it for definition improvement. That list looks well worth doing. Good luck. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, although I'm probably going to wait until after the holidays to start doing it because I'm going to be very inconsistent over the next week or so. Razorflame 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As far as I am aware, Spanish has no plural form for látex. --EncycloPetey 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply