User talk:Robin Lionheart

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you point out, the proper noun is Ground Zero, which is a different page title to ground zero. You can use {{also}} to link between the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you need to use {{delete}} if you want a page to be deleted. Just erasing the content means no admin will find it. Nadando 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, {{delete}} is far better, but blanked pages will eventually be found and tagged for deletion (by AutoFormat). I think.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you leave the edit-summary box blank when creating a page, the software fills in useful info automatically. This is usually superior to (for example) filling in the pagename (which is obviously superfluous info). (But do use edit summaries when editing, as opposed to creating, a page.) I hope that this helps. If you seek clarification or have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talkpage.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please take some time to see what Wiktionary does and does not do. The English Wiktionary does not use templates to create section headers; this breaks section editing. Your creation and insertion of many such templates required a lot of cleanup. Such cleanup is easier to do by reverting than by slow surgical editing (my connection is very slow today), and so many of your changes today have now been undone. Please do not create new format conventions without discussion if you wish to avoid this problem in the future. --EncycloPetey 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Creating this sort of template requires a lot of thought in order to not disrupt entries. We do have one such template, {{abbreviation}}. In this case just write the header out which saves space and is visually easier to read. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well 5 actually, though some of these could arguably be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have been misusing {{l}}. The "tr=" is for transliteration of scripts, and should not be used for translation. You will need to go back and correct every use of this template. --EncycloPetey 18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

He's right. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you certain that this can't also mean "apple tree"? --Yair rand (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only back at the very beginning of Esperanto. I’ve added a usage note regarding this. The founding text of the Esperanto language, the Fundamento, used -uj- with fruit to make names of fruit trees, but compounds with arbo quickly replaced this usage. Every Esperantist I have ever met uses arbo to make names of fruit trees instead. Robin 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Our entry -ing- is a redirect to -ingo, same for -uj- versus -ujo. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe this should have the sci-fi gloss because it is not a term specific to science fiction, like (deprecated template usage) phaser, the same way that "spoon" would not have a culinary gloss: it's a kitchen implement but not specific to culinary speech. That is why I removed the sci-fi gloss from steampunk a few days ago, which you have now restored. What do you think? Equinox ◑ 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me, the italicized words before a definition don’t restrict its domain, they clarify its context. For example, “plain: (geography) flatland” doesn’t mean that “plain” is only used this way by geographers, it means when plain refers to geography, this is what it means. - Robin 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Context labels are overused through laziness. In general, you should just write the category out at the bottom of the page. It would be ridiculous to gloss anatomy as "(anatomy) The study of physiology" (for example) but people actually do it, simply to add a category. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, these entries need a definition line, such as:

# {{eo-form of|pik|oj}}

Or else AutoFormat will tag them as having no definition, and add them to definitionless words. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Huh. So what is {{eo-noun-form|pik|oj}} for? Should it be updated to do this? Robin 07:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two different templates. You could use both, but you don't have to. If you turn on/allow WT:ACCEL you can do all this automatically. I believe it handles Esperanto perfectly as there are no irregular forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not your fault, but your formatting didn't work for Unuiĝintajn Naciojn, so I used general, non-Esperanto specific templates ({{infl}} and {{form of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please use WT:ACCEL or {{eo-form of}}, AutoFormat tagged all of these as "Esperanto definitionless words". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should really get WT:ACCEL working, it takes one click, and you can make noun and adjective forms in about one second each. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I told you. You should browse Category:Esperanto nouns and try and find as many green-linked noun forms as you can. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Most Esperanto suffixes (which Kalocsay & Waringhien call sufiksoidoj) have an inherent part of speech, and so are best listed with the part-of-speech vowel, like any other root. This is how K&W list them. Exceptions would be (true) suffixes like -eg-, -et-, etc. which inherit the part of speech of the stem they suffix to and so effectively are infixes. Actually, one could argue that -ilo and -ino should be moved to ilo and ino, since they are basic nouns, but maybe that's pushing it a bit. Anyway, listing them as -il- and -in- suggests that they're infixes. kwami 23:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Officially, by my texts, -aĵ-, -an-, -ar-, -ej-, -er-, -estr-, -id-, -il-, -in-, -ing-, -uj-, and -ul- among others are infixes. But Kalocsay & Waringhien are correct that they really transform their roots into nouns, and you correctly note they are perfectly good nouns in their own right: aĵo, ano, aro, ejo, ero, estro, ido, ilo, ino, ingo, ujo, and ulo.

My usage is more informed by Richardson (1988) and by Wells (1992), which follow the Fundamento’s practice of writing these suffixoids like infixes. (-estr- has always seemed like it should be listed as estro to me!) I have not read Kalocsay & Waringhien, I’m afraid, but I shall add it to my reading list.

If we dropped the pretense that they are suffixes altogether, words ending in ano, &c. would more aptly be called compounds. I’m not, in principle, against your idea of treating them as nouns, but it could be a controversial move, needing discussion beforehand. - Robin 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly K&W's argument. There are "suffixoids", which started off as suffixes historically but today function effectively as compounding roots, and true suffixes, which cannot be treated as compounding roots because they don't order properly. Then there are "quasisuffixoids", like -ama and -plena, which started off as compounding roots but are used that way so often that they can be thought of as suffixes.

(Sufiksoidoj ni nomas tiun parton de la sufiksoj, kiuj propre ne estas sufiksoj, ĉar ili funkcias tute same kiel la radikoj.)

An infix, if we're going to be technical about it, is inserted within an existing stem. So nationalistic contains no infixes, because at each step of its derivation a suffix was added: al]ist]ic. About the only infixes in non-technical English are slang things like saxomaphone. Most Eo affixes carry their own part-of-speech vowel, so they're not infixed between a root and a pre-existing POS vowel: eco → eco, not *belo‹ec› → bel‹ec›o. I don't know of any Esperanto text that calls -eco a "suffix" and -eg- an infix, but that's how those terms are used in morphology.

BTW, K&W list the following as true suffixes: aĉa, ega, eta, which they call "diafanaj sufiksoj" because they don't change the POS of the stem, um, and unofficial ifi; they then say that ĉj, nj and obl, on, op can be considered among them. For true prefixes, they list bo, eks, ge, mal, pra and unoffical pseŭdo, which change the nature of the stem, something compounding wouldn't do. kwami 08:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{eo-verb-form}} works the same way as {{eo-noun-form}}. They've both been nominated for deletion. Again, AutoFormat will tag these as no definition, and definitions have to be preceeded by #. You seem to be determined not to take the easy way, that is to make things difficult for yourself instead of easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Robin Lionheart in an email said) If there's an easier way to do the verb forms for rikolti, please show me how. It'd be nice if we had a bot to do it.

I think there is a subst:able template of some more. I think it's {{new eo verb form}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It’s not working for me, I'm not sure what I’m doing wrong. - Robin 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to work by specifying two parameters, such as {{subst:new eo verb form|rikolt|is}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Opiaterein has a bot to make Esperanto verb forms automatically. The requests page is at User:Opiaterein Inflectobot/nomnom. --Yair rand (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think he's running this bot any longer. I believe User:AugPi has taken up the reins for said bot. Razorflame 20:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to say, please don't set up categories as "hard redirects", use {{movecat}}. I (we) will produce a list of the categories affected at some point, and convert them to {{movecat}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I’ll change it. - Robin 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

On other wiki's, I have been told to make all my edits for a specific page in one change; I'm new to this wiki, so I don't know if the etiquette ruling here says to make as many changes as you want for each edit, or to try to make most of your edits in one change. If you have learned otherwise from other people here, let me know. I'm just saying this because I noticed you were making three or four edits on the same page; I was a little curious. I'll shut up now. --Jub3r7 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you depopulate Category:English greetings in favor of Category:Greetings? Similarly for the other one. At least the English one is not a topical category. I doubt that any of them should be. Greetings are a speech act not a topic. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed some of bonan matenon/tagon/vesperon/nokton had Category:eo:Greetings and some didn’t, so for consistency's sake, I added that category to all of them. Category:Greetings was autolinking to Category:eo:Greetings and Category:English greetings had only two entries. It seemed like the redundant categories should be merged into Category:Greetings. As to why someone made a Greetings category in the first place, I assume it's so “hello” in Wikisaurus will return other greetings, which seems worthwhile enough. I really don't think the English one should be linking to Category:Parts of speech, though. - Robin 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

See WT:RFM#:Category:Greetings. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any chance you could clean this up? I added {{eo-form of}} but that's all I can do. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to add more categories, but please do not remove this word from existing categories. Wiktionary is lexically arranged, and we do not use the topical hierarchy that Wikipedia uses. names of all countries should be in Category:Countries, even if they are in other categories. Names of languages should be in Category:Languages, even if they are in other categories. If you wish to see a major change in the Wiktionary category structure, you should propose this change and have that discussion before making radical changes. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I can add Countries to each of the countries' topic cat parents and take care of that across the board. - Robin 01:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, that won't fix the problem. That will only categorize the categories. It is the entries that I am talking about. --EncycloPetey 01:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see, the entries need to go under Countries. OK, my bad, I thought it was supposed to work like WP. I’ve got to go readd Countries throughout most of Europe then. Hi ho... - Robin 01:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very little of what we do works like WP. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do nationalities go in both Demonyms and Nationalities? - Robin 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just nationalities. --EncycloPetey 05:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The main problem with this is that the parent category would be Category:French language which isn't topical it's linguistic. On a more general note, I oppose over-specific topical categories, but some people like them, and some hate them. So you can basically disregard the second sentence, it's the first sentence that counts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might want to enable HotCat in the Gadgets tab of Special:Preferences to help you add categories more quickly. Just a suggestion. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I suggest not using {{poscatboiler}} to organize abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms, (and contractions, for that matter) because they are not parts of speech. --Daniel. 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Without it, every language must code categories for “Language abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms”, “Abbreviations by language”, “Acronyms by language”, “Initialisms by language”, etc. by hand. We have a perfectly good mechanism to do all that for nouns, verbs, and adjective, it’s foolish not to use it for abbreviations too. - Robin 00:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and we have {{affixcatboiler}} for suffixes, prefixes, etc. And {{phrasecatboiler}} for phrases. Perhaps another catboiler must be done for abbreviations... maybe {{shortcatboiler}}? Thanks for calling poscatboiler a "perfectly good mechanism", I'm flattered. --Daniel. 00:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I’d support a {{shortcatboiler}}, though it is sounding like you’re more qualified to make it than I. Care to do the honors? — Robin 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. {{shortcatboiler}} is done. --Daniel. 01:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great! Updated cats to use it. Can you make it do what sortparent1 did for {{poscatboiler}}? — Robin 01:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can do that. Now, shortcatboiler sorts categories accordingly and automatically. It does not need a "sortparent1" anymore, so I have removed it. Since the automatic sorting is a new functionality, it may have to take some time before affecting all existing categories. --Daniel. 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to speedy create as many Esperanto noun forms as possible. If you're interested, feel free to remove links for words that already have all the correct noun forms. I'm trying to check 100 Esperanto entries a day, so with 3000 left that's still a month. So any help would be appreciated. I've already done the same thing for Esperanto adjectives and Ido nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that’s great. I was dissatisfied with WT:ACCEL’s inability to accelerate verb forms, its mistakes with open compounds, and its not properly generating proper {{infl|eo}}’s but instead cheaply resorting to unsemantic boldface, so I’ve started writing my own using the Custom regex gadget. You can see my custom noun-, verb-, and adjective-form greaser in my vector.js. It’s a work in progress. — Robin 09:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I put that link in, to try and explain what greased means. I certainly don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that’s just a nonce term for what the script does. ACCEL puts “Accelerated” in the description line of its autofilled edits, so I had my JavaScript tag its edits “Greased”. It started out as a script run by Firefox’s Greasemonkey extension, before I adapted it for the Custom Regex gadget. Lubricant seemed as good a metaphor as accelerant. — Robin 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why {{infl|eo|noun form}} instead of {{infl|eo}}? --Yair rand (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It lets infl add the word to the “Esperanto noun forms” Category. eo-part of does that too, but on the occasions when we replace the eo-part of with a custom definition (like with saluton, for example), then infl takes care of it so we don’t have to add Category:Esperanto noun forms by hand. Belt and suspenders, as they say. Plus it could give robots a clue about POS, which could help them spot errors. — Robin 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure about exactly what you did here; I suppose that the Esperanto translation will survive even if there are entries in other languages as well as interwiki on the same page. :-p --Harald Khan Ճ 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yikes! I’m glad you caught that. — Robin 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw you add some entries about esperanto, so could you look at this page? Thanks. Pamputt 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Continued at Talk:starigi. — Robin 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'd recommend {{alternative capitalization of}}, or else deletion. Redirections are bad because they say nothing about why the entry is a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

At this rate, you'll make admin by the end of the year. Are you a Wikipedia administrator? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. — Robin 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

A few odd looking Esperanto words here. Any sign of them in dictionaries, or in print? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

varmisto/malvarmisto for “warm weather person”/“cold weather person”? Yeah, those feel erroneous to me too, like inventions by someone who hasn’t learned the difference between -isto (“member of a profession related to”) and -ulo (“person characterized by”). I’d’ve coined varmulo/malvarmulo, that’d accord with colloquial use of dekstrulo (“rightie”)/maldekstrulo (“leftie”). But I’ll do due diligience and see if I can find them in actual use. — Robin 05:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in print or Usenet, Google finds only one Esperanto document using varmisto as a nonce abbreviation for varmteknikisto. Replaced definitions, recommending both for deletion. — Robin 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed all the single words from this as single words aren’t (usually) consider idiomatic. It had stuff like virhundo in it. Would Esperanto consider this idiomatic? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Single words can be idiomatic. Frex, “lemon” is a single-word idiom, as in “His car is a lemon”. I think virhundo is an idiom in the way that ice cream is an idiom, in that they are terms whose meaning is not transparent from knowing their component parts. — Robin 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT he is 'attested' (as you put it) in the Bible and the Qu'ran. I think he's attested in other writings too. I think what's commonly contested is that he's the son of God, not whether a person named Jesus existed and was born circa 1 AD. NB this is a discussion about the Wiktionary entry, not about Jesus Christ in general. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Which are not historical records. The historicity of Jesus is, at the very least, controversial. There is neither a shred of physical evidence, nor a single contemporaneous record of his lifetime. (Moreover, the name "Jesus of Nazareth" is anachronistic, since archeological evidence dates the town of Nazareth back to the late Roman period; Nazareth did not even exist in the first century AD.) Anyway, rather than provoking some readers by (accurately) writing "of questionable historicity", "legendary" seemed a safely ambiguous adjective to take no position on his existence. — Robin 11:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see why they're not historical. Not unbiased, sure yes. But how are Plato or Aristotle attested in a way that Jesus isn't. Oh and Jesus does appear outside of the Qu'ran and the Bible. But I suppose you already know that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Iliad is not a historical record of the Trojan War for reasons that should be obvious. Likewise The Bible and the Qur'an. — Robin 23:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on the third-person pronouns and adjectives! :) I've tried to edit all the existing ones and the ones I'ved added to the same format (the format he, herself etc use). Also, I'm thinking we should split Wiktionary:List of protologisms by topic/third person singular gender neutral pronouns: I figure most of these pronouns are attested, so they're not really protologisms. I've tentatively created Appendix:English third-person singular pronouns. What do you think? (It occurs to me both lists are slightly misnamed, because they include possessive adjectives, but I think Appendix:English third-person singular pronouns and possessive adjectives is a bit unwieldy, haha.) By the way, what do you think we should do with forms like "I hugged eir", which are not the "standard" Spivak forms, but are attested and used together with the other Spivak forms ("ey" etc)? Should we have footnotes in the table and/or usage notes in the entries? - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Splitting the list is OK with me. We could put {{SIC}} next to erroneous usages like "I hugged eir". And I'm all for usage notes. ~ Robin 01:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

On what basis were you calling "eir" as objective pronoun attested? I see a single, non-durable citation. That seems like a mistake rather a genuine usage. ~ Robin 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I couldn't help but noticing this very interesting template of yours. Very good, although I'd recommend instead of having -iĉ- as a suffix, use vir- as a prefix for male animals, as iĉism hasn't really catched on as a neologism by the greatest part of Esperanto speakers, and unnecessary neologisms are somewhat frowned upon sometimes.

Cheers! --Pikolas 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My generic animal template already does generate vir- words as hyponyms. I now also have another template for vir- animal headwords. ~ Robin 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Wiktionary:Grease pit#Template:quote-news.

Please be more careful when editing widely-used templates!

—Ruakh_TALK
15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That quote is really disgusting, it makes my eyes water. --Rockpilot 01:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

More to the point, I don't think we can use it: we can't tell it's using "thon" as such; it might be writing "thon" as a representation of something else, much as it writes "thε" as a representation of "the". I think it should be moved to the talk or citations page... - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I want to unsee the quotation. --Rockpilot 01:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha, thank you for that. I typed it for the challenge, but your horror just made it funny for me, too. Anyway, it's not a representation of something else. According to their guide to their idiosyncratic orthography at the start of this volume, "thon" just happens to remain "thon". ~ Robin 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• If you look closely at WT:CFI and WT:ELE I'm sure you'll see some subclause about not permitting things that burn the eyes. --Rockpilot 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I've added a transliteration= so you can read the sentence without staring at the orthographic horror. ~ Robin 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

i hope you had a great halloween and i helped improve some of those entries for you.Acdcrocks 09:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing I don't need to tell you what my query about this entry is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know, but some Esperanto writers insist on ending goddesses’ names in -a (Afrodita, &c.). It feels like poor Esperanto to me for accusative Atenan to be a noun, but even Vikipedio writes “Atena” at present.

If they refuse to accept the -o, I'd rather they follow the practice of another early Esperanto writer who used Atena’ (that is, eliding the -o from Atenao):

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

But my adversion to it is irrelevant; it's a confusing usage that needs a definition. ~ Robin 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

eo.wikipedia.org also gives Hera and Hestia. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robin, would you like me to nominate you for Wiktionary adminship? You've been here long enough and I'm sure you'd make good use of the tools --Simplus2 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please! ~ Robin 20:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okey dokey - please accept Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-12/User:Robin Lionheart for admin --Simplus2 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this could be created as a new category? It'd certainly be a neat way to see all of these words. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This may be of interest.​—msh210℠ (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, great idea!  Done, created an appendix page, at Appendix:American Dialect Society words of the year. -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Robin lionheart is gay because he deletes FUN! and also he has a gay name, fag. - preceding unsigned comment by 194.81.238.234, 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please sign your comments with four tildes, anonymous homophobe. And for making an attack page with that title, you just got yourself a time-out. ~ Robin 11:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned you, at the bottom of Talk:santorum#A_notice_to_editors.2C_please_read_this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also mentioned you at Wiktionary:Tea_room#santorum. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I gather you've started citations pages after there are more than 5 sourced quotes for examples on a page. Is that pretty much you general standard? Is there a healthy max of quotes to have on a page? Is 10 okay? -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I do tend to think “too much” at around 6 quotes. I’m not sure what a good maximum would be. But if you’d like a guideline: if readers have to scroll back from a quote to reread its definition, that’s probably too many. ~ Robin 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, quite right, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see my work at:

1. assholocracy
2. Citations:assholocracy

and also the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#assholeocracy.

Is there anything else that can be done to make sure this page is not deleted? -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems like you've adequately attested it now. Good job. ~ Robin 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! What about that Requests for verification thread, what will happen there? Also, based on Citations:assholocracy, do you think I could go ahead and create pages for those other redlinks? -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please block and revert: User:124.183.141.231, User:184.48.117.19, and User:72.129.125.97. Thanks Metaknowledge 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked one and reverted two. Thanks for the notice. In the future, if you post these to WT:VIP, they'll more likely be seen sooner by an admin, as all admins should have that page watchlisted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and now I see Robin's also reverted one of the three. Thanks, Robin.  :-) ​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Trying to make Template:TOC limit work at Citations:santorum. Thought it'd be useful to break up years into subsections, for editing purposes. But didn't want each year to appear in the TOC. So I created Template:TOC limit from coding at w:Template:TOC limit. However, it does not work here. Any ideas on how to fix it? -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it relied on one CSS declaration in w:Mediawiki:common.css, that wasn't in ours. I've imported it. Template:TOC limit now works correctly. ~ Robin 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wow, sweet, thanks very much! -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#American_Dialect_Society = is there anything I can do to save this page? I've really worked hard on it, just look at the Citations page! -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why did you make an entry for American Dialect Society? We're Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. If you wanted to link the name, I'd've used {{w|American Dialect Society}}. ~ Robin 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Heh, I saw other entries in Category:en:Organizations, and thought it would be okay, that's why! :P -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think that, formerly, "year=2012" and "date=February 22" was sufficient to get a date to display. "Year=2012" still works, but "date=" does not now. Whether or not I am correct and whether or not your changes may have caused this behavior to change, could you please enable these parameters to work. I have a strong suspicion that a goodly number of instances of {{quote-journal}} use "date=". DCDuring TALK 23:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Done Yeah, a goodly number. Should handle those syntax errors gracefully now. ~ Robin 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. Our widely used templates have the "legacy" problem. For less common deviations from formatting standards, it can be simpler to correct the deviations and I would be willing to do my bit for uniformity in that regard.

Our practice across the "quote" templates is not uniform in various ways not really required by the differences in the media. Perhaps it might amuse you or someone else to address the matter, though it does not seem to irritate many people, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that but honestly is it really even a valid word? Lucifer 11:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I guess it is now... lol Y12J (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm kinda new to using the templates so wasn't aware of the mention v. use differences. Also didn't know about the multiple author thing. Thank you for finding references to back the word on use.net. I'm glad that UseNet counts since a lot of vocabulary common in present day might go otherwise ignored.

One of these quotes has me perplexed though. The 1993 quote by Shapero mentions "before Xanth". I had thought Demons Don't Dream was the first Xanth reference. But then I realized that the date of that quote didn't match with the date the Xanth novel was published, which was months before the UseNet post, so I fixed that. Y12J (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

A Friendship is Magic Wiki post by Nathan2000 says that Piers Anthony answered how he came up with alicorn thus: “I saw fantasy statuettes in an ad, and one was of a winged unicorn, titled an alicorn, so I figured that was the name and used it. I have not been able to verify it elsewhere.” ~ Robin (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to get Template:Sockpuppet and associated templates to work here on Wiktionary, but not having an easy go of it at the moment. :(

Also, this guy link warrants a block I think for disruption, and I believe it's likely a sock of Stevert (talk • contribs).

I'd appreciate any help with either one. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Who is Stevert? And why would I be his sock??? 84.198.56.170 16:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I tried fixing your template, by the way. 84.198.56.170 17:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#wall_humping

Any chance you can help out with this? I found all of the citations through newsgroup searches. Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is this what you meant to add to {{User lang-3}} and the like? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your promptness. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

What's an "affy" among contest entrants? (Saw it on your Web site.) Anyway, we might want that word, if it's CFI-attestable; Usenet is possible. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Slang for "affidavit". Contests often require winners of big prizes to fill in, notarize, and send back an affidavit affirming their eligibility. ~ Robin (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hm, what makes you think that that (deprecated template usage) they is singular? Looks plural to me. Equinox ◑ 21:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The word (deprecated template usage) everybody (like (deprecated template usage) anybody and (deprecated template usage) somebody) is grammatically singular, which is why you say “everybody was there” and not “everybody were there”. ~ Robin (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are all "mansplainers" men? If so, we should note that as part of the definition. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you find someone saying “women can mansplain too!”, it’s probably a mansplainer mansplaining mansplaining. ~ Robin (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay. What a political term. I wonder how "blacksplaining" or "Irishsplaining" would go down! Equinox ◑ 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

A more apt parallel would be "whitesplaining", for whites condescendingly explaining to people of color things that their listener has more experience with than they do. ~ Robin (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why is that "more apt"? It is not only traditionally privileged groups that can patronise others! Equinox ◑ 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mansplaining is not just being patronizing. It’s when a man talks down to a woman, assuming he knows better than she does simply because he’s a man and she’s not. And it happens all the time.

A racial parallel would be when a white person talks down to a person of color, assuming they know better simply because they’re white. You can probably more readily remember occasions where a white person did that, than a similar instance with a black person. That’s why “whitesplaining” would be more apt than your nonce “blacksplaining”. ~ Robin (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Fair enough. Was recently citing (deprecated template usage) shitwork, which almost never appears outside feminist contexts. Again, it's perfectly possible for men to do shitwork, but on balance it hasn't happened so much. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Robin Lionheart, I hope you're doing well. :) Could I get some of your help and advice at assholocracy? I've worked quite a bit on the research, and the citations page at Citations:assholocracy now has three (3) cites to Usenet, one book cite, and three (3) cites to newspaper articles that are archived themselves via database archives including LexisNexis. However at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#assholocracy, one user doesn't think this is sufficient. Any advice or input would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

See for example ongoing usage, May 2012. -- Cirt (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, you’ve got two from Usenet for assholocrat, just one more for that word. “My favorite was "assholocracy", which won "most outrageous".” would be a mention where the word refers to itself, not a use conveying the word’s meaning. Only uses count toward attestation. ~ Robin (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

What are your sources for the Esperanto terms you've been adding because I am having doubts on some of the words that you've been making lately. Razorflame 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I haven’t done much with Esperanto words for a while. Since last month, I've edited these Esperanto words:

Which did you have doubts about? I supplied at least one quote from Esperanto literature for each of those except olekrano. My usual dictionaries are Wells and the PIV. ~ Robin (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no problems. Sorry for accusing you like this :) My passion is Esperanto, so I only want to make sure that everything is as accurate as possible :) The one I was doubting was olekrano, but I found it in a dictionary that I use as well, so it looks like a valid term to me :) Again, sorry for doubting you like that :( AND I REALLY need to stop signing my posts on talk pages XD Razorflame 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly an uncommon word. If you can find any Esperanto quotes about olecranons, please feel free to add them to the entry. ☻ ~ Robin (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you think naming them just 'hundred' and 'thousand' is ok too? —CodeCat 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, hundred and thousand do seem preferable. (I was thinking that if I ended up making a category for another round number of hundreds like 500, that "one hundred" and "five hundred" would be parallel.) But I'll rename them (when I can find the link to do so again). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, isn't it easier to just add Category:English words prefixed with kilo- itself to Category:en:Thousand? It might make the point more clear, too. And of course Category:English words prefixed with milli- would belong there too. —CodeCat 01:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That would be more convenient than running down the entire catalog of SI units. Feel free to do so! ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I added them and did the same for 100 as well. But you should probably remove the few entries you added manually. —CodeCat 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Heh, since when did you have these on your sig? Equinox ◑ 00:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since röck döts became WOTD. ☻ ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

There was recently a discussion about what tags to add to the articles such as hell and devil (see ). Which tag(s) do you think is appropriate? Pass a Method (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your quality improvement help at page, Streisand effect, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see this (addressed?) discussion has been cross-posted in two locations, at Wiktionary:Tea_room#Streisand_effect and then subsequently at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Mention_quotations_in_the_mainspace_and_Citations_namespace (almost seems like "forum shopping", also known as "asking the other parent", but not quite, almost though, comes kinda close, just not all the way there, this time). It seems this issue has been successfully addressed, at both locations. It also seems that there is solid consensus from the Wiktionary community to retain all the citations at the Citations page, and then use the best most optimum entries at the main entry page. So, bearing all that in mind, can this tag of "rft" be removed from the entry page for Streisand effect, at this point in time? Thanks very much for your helpful input and advice, -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

I was able to find this citation, can you find any more for the plural form? It is most definitely in use, see search for "streisand effects" in Google. Thanks again for all your help, -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Added one from a Canadian magazine. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is actually correct... --Yair rand (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oops, you're right, I made a cutpasto there. Fixed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

After my edit, I'm not sure if rail shooter is the same. I understand a rail shooter to comprise separate fixed scenes, like House of the Dead, whereas this spunk term seems to refer to games with free movement (in theory) but where the game objectives require very linear progression. Equinox ◑ 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yahtzee's description of “riding a conveyor belt to the next chest-high wall” aside, I'm not sure either, so I retracted it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The spelling se'nnight seems to be more common than sennight. (see: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=4&Word=se%27nnight&By=0 ) Should it be the main header? (And how would one make the change?) JulieKahan (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

While a Special:MovePage/sennight is possible, I'd just make a second entry for se'nnight and replace sennight's definition with {{alternate spelling of}}. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't get Google to find me the citation. Can you put a link in the citation? DCDuring TALK 00:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I recorded that episode during today's marathon, and A&E's website doesn't stream it. You could probably rent the season 1 DVDs, though. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Robin, I hope you're doing well!

I was wondering if you could help me with Pricasso?

1. First off, it'd be appreciated if you could come up with any additional citations for the first definition. I have one so far, but I know that there must be multiple other cites out there somewhere.
2. Also, any ideas as to why the quotes aren't showing up on the main entry page? (I figured this one out.)

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Update: Please now see this comment. I made sure to create a citations page and put in a lot of effort to add numerous citations. Any ideas on what can be done? -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I replied to you over there. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

These verbs (which I admit I've never heard before) look intransitive to me, but the conjugation templates you added back when you created them are for transitive verbs - are they indeed transitive somehow, or are the conjugation templates just missing the "intr=yes" parameter? Mr. Granger (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Similarly, malkrokodili. Mr. Granger (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find Esperanto slang to be really cool, but I rather doubt these would pass CFI... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ili mankas intr=yes. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dankon. (As for your concern, Metaknowledge, I've actually heard malkrokodili before, and a quick Google Groups search pulls up a couple of uses, so it might be citeable. I don't know about the others.) Mr. Granger (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do we need non-entries? See the complaints by other users on my talk page for details. LalalalaSta (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why anyone would look up our sister Wikis on Wiktionary, but while I'm unsure those stubs are justified, I do not think they should be speedily deleted without a discussion on RFD.

A user might plausibly look up the common noun frindle, at least. I do not think we could say the same for names of fictional characters like Mona the Vampire and Clifford the Big Red Dog (or their eponymous works). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I changed my mind about frindle. Please join my discussion here if you'd like! (: LalalalaSta (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since these really apply to one language specifically, do you think there should be a language header? —CodeCat 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

See abripe for a reason to have a language header. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

So you agree? If so, could you add one to the entries you edit? —CodeCat 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Indeed I could. See also the last fifty edits in my Contributions. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. I don't see you adding language headers in any of those edits. That's why I asked. —CodeCat 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Doh. I guess I'll have to go fill all those in. Ozay! ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason you're keeping these pages with {{no entry}} templates instead of just deleting them? My understanding was that when a word fails RFV, its entry is supposed to be deleted... —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Only a couple well-formed and plausible ones like ekspluatantaĉo, or ones with citations but not enough. -ent- probably doesn't merit it, though. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree that pugumi is a valid translation of moon. If we cannot find citations demonstrating that the word pugumi is used, then it is not a valid translation, and we are misleading our readers by including it in the translation table and implying that it is a real word actually used by Esperanto-speakers. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

If we had a better attested translation for moon, I'd list that instead. But it's not a bad translation; it's a straightforward application of -um- to pugo, and a prominent English-Esperanto dictionary actually gives it as an actual translation. So why make a shtuss over it? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I would argue that no application of -um- is straightforward, by the very nature of the suffix. But anyway, the only use of pugumi that I've been able to find uses it with quite a different meaning, so I don't think we can safely assert that it will be understood with the meaning moon. If I had to translate the word moon to Esperanto, I wouldn't use the word pugumi—I would say "montri sian pugon" so as not to be misunderstood. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that quoted usage with a very different meaning is a compelling argument; saying you pugumis someone could lead to very unfortunate misunderstandings. Reversion withdrawn! ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I created this template for Esperanto words. It can automatically detect the part of speech based on the ending, and shows the appropriate inflections and categories. —CodeCat 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robin Lionheart. I edited your vector.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so the main difference you'll see is an improved regex editor and cleaner custom scripts. I also updated deprecated functions and made your scripts HTTPS-compatible. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 18:36:35, 09 August 2015 (UTC)

(I also moved vector.js to common.js so it'll work in all skins.) —Pathoschild (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply