User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/Archive4

Hi, I saw in your user page you requested if somebody knows any book good for learning some languages. I think this one is good (maybe not exceptional, but..). It's all in Latin and explains oneself (but perhaps is better to have a teacher anyway). Tn4196 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I’ll give it a shot. Unfortunately having a teacher is not an option since my free time is very fragmented.

BTW, I remember you also supported the inclusion of a Venetian Wiktionary. Do you happen to know a good, published Venetian dictionary using the modern orthography? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Online I know and use this. There is the paper version of that dictionary and some vec. users use it, if you find it you are ok. Then, I speak a particular (different) and quite little dialect of the Venetian, so I have got another one. Tn4196 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. Part of my family are native Venetian speakers, so I always wanted to add some content. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What was that for? Keφr 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, never mind. I thought you were playing a prank on him. Keφr 19:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

He asked me to do it, but now that you mention, editing someone’s css would be a hilarious prank. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, are been rather busy in real life so have been taking an extended wikibreak; I haven't been able to find anything specially suitable for FWOTDs 1-year. I thought a few interesting ones were Maori tau, OCS лѣто, Nahuatl xihuitl and Scots gimmer. Only xihuitl has cites and pronunciation, though; so given that it's already the 18th where I am, it might be the only one suitable. Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shit, I totally forgot about that! Xihuitl is great, I’ll go set it. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are these for? They seem to be unused. Keφr 19:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Portuguese verb conjugation module I’m working on. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why does it have so many subpages? —CodeCat 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because of irregular verbs. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed your comment in the Grease Pit. Thank you for this! It's great, especially since it doesn't omit languages with <10 entries, which makes it possible to spot L2s that shouldn't exist or need to be expanded. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I’ll be keeping and updating it here. Watchlist it if you’re interested. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 09:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, great! Once you update that page, would you mind if I made WT:STATS transclude it rather than the apparently no-longer-updated Wiktionary:Statistics/generated? - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

My initial plan was to update STATS directly, but the GP comment had little response, so I decided to host it as a subpage. To be honest, now I prefer avoiding that, since those who oppose me being here will use any mistake I make (and they will undoubtedly occur in this page) against me.

But if the current statistics are to be replaced with mine, I might as well save them there instead of transcluding, otherwise others might avoid fixing mistakes in someone’s subpage. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

If those who oppose you being here can compile more accurate stats than you, I encourage them to. Otherwise, compiling stats is inherently difficult and inexact, and no-one should get too bent out of shape about it. I calculated a different entry than SB did for en.Wikt's 3000000th entry (the entry I calculated and the one he calculated were by the same contributor and only five edits apart) and for en.Wikt's 3500000th entry (the entry I calculated and the one he calculated were by the same contributor, but were quite far apart). In both cases, I imagine the discrepancy was due to pages being deleted after he counted and before I counted. At one point, I worked out how many Swedish entries we had by manually adding up the entries in each POS category (aware that some entries would be in multiple categories). I got a number that was IIRC a few thousand lower(!) than what Conrad's bot had calculated. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

For a pop-cap novilunar head-start, I had at least a public library-kept-up book about different-time-zone-range birds. Now, about the ctbusters themselves to ME safe yet also TAME like a HELL-SINGER O.V.A./Mangaka... --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Piras. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

AND I came across this genuine secret. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

O que houve contigo, senhora Brown? Sempre foi uma editora seríssima. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I was about to do this (or something like it) myself. As you can see, I was just looking at the help documentation... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That page happened to be in my watchlist. I wouldn’t call it a misspelling though. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right It's not a misspelling—it's just a variant orthography... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ungoliant. When you userfied codecessor to me, you left its plural dangling in the mainspace. You probably want to userfy it to me as well. --Mokhov (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moved to User:Mokhov/codecessors. Thanks for the heads up. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

Are you happy to patrol Recent Changes yourself now - I'm really not doing it any more.

By the way, have you noticed that when you block someone for a day, the actual block is for 7 hours longer?

Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I don’t enough free time to keep up with every unpatrolled change, but now that you have stopped, I’ll try to spend more time on it. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 07:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that all the remaining sysops (and there are quite a lot) should get together and decide who does what. If any of them don't actually want to do anything, all they have to do is ask me to desysop them (I'm still a 'crat). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think simply allotting responsibilities to people would last very long. What we could do is create some sort of page to coordinate patrolling efforts by, for example, listing promising beginners or anons per the language or theme they edit. This would encourage people to at least patrol edits in the languages they know well. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oi, Ungoliant, tudo bem? Acabei de ver seu aviso lá na minha discussão. Faz bastante tempo que aquelas userboxes estão na homepage, por isto jamais imaginei que elas não fossem permitidas. Por mim tudo bem removê-las: embora eu preferisse mantê-las (por considerá-las "práticas"), não tenho nenhuma intenção de criar caso contra uma decisão da comunidade. O que a comunidade decide é regra.

Quando você deixou aquela mensagem na minha discussão, a primeira pergunta que me fiz foi "onde isso está escrito?", porque eu realmente nunca havia visto essa regra. Daí fui vasculhar Wiktionary:Policies_and_guidelines, userbox e Wiktionary:Index_to_Policies, mas não encontrei nada. Até que tive a ideia de vasculhar Wiktionary:Votes e foi então que encontrei Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Babel_userboxes.

Como foi meio demorado encontrar essa regra, e tendo em vista que um usuário menos experiente possivelmente não conseguirá encontrá-la, minha sugestão é que, se porventura acontecer de você vir a se deparar com mais algum outro usuário utilizando userboxes, ao deixar uma mensagem de aviso na discussão dele inclua um link para aquela votação. Assim fica mais fácil o usuário/editor entender que se trata de uma decisão coletiva (e ler os argumentos que foram utilizados e que levaram a maioria a decidir contra a utilização de userboxes).

Ah: e obrigado por me avisar! Vou remover as userboxes... . Abraço.►Sampayu 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. I absolutely agree with replacing a list with a category, where it's equivalent, but there were some red links that you've removed by doing it. I think they should be kept as separate red links until someone either creates them or deletes them as unattestable. I'm going to restore them. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn’t it better to add them to WT:REE instead, so if they are indeed unattestable they won’t be being listed by a mainspace page? But feel free, I don’t feel strongly about this. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi: You undid my edit to the etymology of zoœcial, saying that since it was an alternate spelling of another word that it should not have etymological information. Is that standard practice here? I was just trying to fill a {rfe} request. What should I do if I find a similar request in the future? — E | talk 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's standard practice but not a policy recorded anywhere. The idea really is to get the reader to click on the bold blue link to get everything. One problem with adding an etymology is that someone will edit one page and not the other, then the pages say different things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In general yes. There are some exceptions, such as when the alternative form actually has a different etymology (these cases are rare since having a different etymology implies being a different word 99% of the time).

If you find an etymology request in a non-lemma entry, you can add the requested thing to the lemma and remove the request with an edit summary of “added to lemma” or similar. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Mglovesfun: I did add the same ety to both zoœcial and zooecial but I understand how there could be confusion.

@Ungoliant: Got it. Thanks. — E | talk 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointers and edits on formatting entries. Have a couple of quick questions:

1. Am beginning to enter letters of the Fula alphabet, but notice that not all languages have this - is there a policy in this regard? Would seem that if every language with a letter "a" had a few lines on that page, for instance, it would become enormous. (I had loading issues at one point.)
2. I haven't yet been adding citations (but would use one in particular):
   1. Is this necessary/recommended?
   2. Does it suffice to enter into the citation page, or is it necessary to enter on the main page as well?

TIA for any info.--A12n (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. It is acceptable to do so. I’ve actually raised the issue of the letter POS causing pages to become too large, but that discussion didn’t go anywhere.
2. 1. Fula is not a well documented language so it only needs a reference from a trustworthy linguistic source. But even adding a reference is not necessary, unless someone requests verification here. However, if you think adding references is not a waste of your time, you should do it. I recommend creating a template for the dictionary/source you are using if you plan on doing so (like {{R:Dicionário Mirandês-Português}}, {{R:Dicionário Mirandês-Português}}).
   2. You don’t need to add them to the citations page. Usually they are only used when there are too many citations.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado. Will see about doing a template and being regular about citations. I guess Fula is not well documented per the criteria, but it has been the subject of a lot of studies over the years, mostly focusing on specific regional use, with greater or lesser discussion of the wider linguistic context. So it's kind of Balkanized - being spoken across several countries without a formal standard (unlike, say, Arabic) does not help. (FWIW, I personally learned the language in two areas - Maasina (Mali) then Futa Jalon (Guinea). The latter is somewhat of an outlier in the continuum (as is Adamawa in the east), but I did notice unexpected similarities with Fulfulde in Niger when there later.--A12n (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Você pode traduzir‐o? --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Feito. (traduzi-lo). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Você pode traduzir «no comment»? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Temos mais sinónimos para sanduíche? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Desconheço. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Que significa ora bem? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Parece ser uma expressão para abrir uma frase dramaticamente, mas não lembro de tê-la visto alguma vez. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

isso sim: bom português (para indeed)? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sim. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Você pode dar‐me todos idiotismos com sim, meu amigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

pois sim (emphatic positive responde)

pelo sim pelo não (in case we are wrong; as a precaution)

dar o sim (to accept a marriage proposal)

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

What about porque sim, sim que, or que sim? --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Porque sim é um. Sim que não conheço. Que sim não é idiomático. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

trick or treat#Translations --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wait! That wasn’t citable; I’ve fixed it now. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not Turkish directly, but Proto-Altaic in the sense of Euroasiatic: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ar%C4%B1&action=history, Frontcover Joseph Harold Greenberg: Indo-European and its closest relatives. 2. Lexicon, Stanford University Press, 2002, p.23Xore6674 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Eurasiatic is not well-understood enough to assert that two given terms from different branches are cognates. Hell, even its existence is disputed! — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is worth to mention it as a short assumption at all? ... since both branches seem to be very similar. --37.24.98.232 19:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, we should not be listing these as "cognates" until there is scholarly consensus to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I corrected the US pronunciation of thirty per the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#.5B.C9.BE.5D or .5Bd.5D in thirty.3F.21. If you believe this was an error, could you explain why? Thanks. Also note that I am a native US English speaker, and have never heard the word pronounced in the US as anything besides θɜɹdi. Kaldari (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Didn’t you see my second edit? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Many terms are based on popular culture, and so the cant is constantly updated according to changing fashions. The terms listed here are well-established."

This is incorrect.

"Many terms are based on popular culture, and so the list is constantly updated according to changing fashions. The terms listed here are well-established."

This is the correct version.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

How is it incorrect? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"cant" is not a noun. What is being described in the appendix is a "list" which is constantly updated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is, see cant. Cockney rhyming slang is a type of cant and the appendix is saying that it often changes. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see what you're saying. I still think list is more appropriate because a cant cannot update itself. I will accept the change though. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Yes, I think that this rollback is an error. Why have you deleted my question? — Automatik (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fuck. It was an accident, sorry. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have restored it now. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. — Automatik (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Você pode inspeccionar as traduções? --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A trema é obsoleta. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well. OK, you've reverted my edit, which may even be justified, since it's hard to explain in three words. First of all, what was my motivation to change something at all? It was the original sentence (and now again after you reverted my change), which was in English translation: She has not gone out after she got married. There is the basic problem. We're under the ADVERB section, right? And what is after here? Not an adverb, but a conjunction!! (like "before" is one too). And it can't be denied in the sentence you reverted, "since" HAD the function of an adverb! See now? -andy 77.191.195.135 10:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is preferable for a term’s translation to match its part of speech, but the thing is, the new sentence was in bad English. Should it have a since, possible sentences include “Ever since she got married she has not gone outside.” and “She got married, but/and has not gone outside since”.

Thanks for contacting me, I hope this can be sorted out. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Still no cigar for the former. "Ever since she..." is AGAIN a conjunction! The "since" must be last word in sentence to have an adverbial function. No buts. (Tricky huh? :p) -andy 77.191.195.135 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. A tradução de telekinesis em português é telecinêse??
2. Não sei se é minha imaginação, mas acho que meu professor pronuncia "nh" como (por exemplo, minha é ). Conhece este fenômeno? (Ele é paulista.) , not . I never know.] Ultimateria (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
   1. São telecinésia, telecinética, telecinese (com /ɛ/) e telecinesia, o último sendo mais comum.
   2. Não sei responder com certeza, mas no meu sotaque também solto um leve /j/ depois do /ɲ/ (e é mesmo, não como a Wikipédia que te fazer crer). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 08:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Ancient Greek etymological citations, length should always be indicated, just as in Latin, Old English and all other languages with distinctive vowel length. The conventions in Wiktionary:Ancient Greek romanization and pronunciation are screwed; whoever wrote that didn't know what they were doing from a linguistic perspective. Benwing (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should start a discussion here if you think it needs to be fixed. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. You have recently reverted my changes on the "crawl" page, and I believe you might be wrong on this. I am a fluent speaker of both Portuguese and English, and I am pretty sure "rastejar" does not mean "to move along the ground on hands and knees" as described in the page. The only correct word in portuguese for that case would be "engatinhar". While rastejar and engatinhar are words used for similar motions of the human body (I am obviously aware that some animals also "rastejam"), there are differences, even though these might be subtle. Maybe these two words are synonyms in one accent or two, but in standard portuguese there is a clear difference between the two. "Rastejar" would be to "move slowly with the abdomen close to the ground", while engatinhar would be "to move along the ground on hands and knees". I hope you understand the reason behind my change, and hopefully revert your own so as to avoid having misleading translations on Wiktionary. — This unsigned comment was added by Onomamashinee (talk • contribs).

You are ignoring the rest of the English definition: “ or by dragging the body along the ground.”

Look at the first quotation: “A worm finds what it searches after only by feeling, as it crawls from one thing to another.”

In this example the term crawls is correctly translated as rasteja, and it would be incorrect to use engatinha. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out, the problem is, me and I believe other people use Wiktionary to find translations, and if they go straight to the translations part, they might read the descriptions on the translation box and get the impression that these two words are synonyms, since only the first part of the definition is being specified on the translation box. Probably a good idea would be to specify that "rastejar" and "engatinhar" are not synonyms, so as to make it clear that only one of them matches the translation box description. — This unsigned comment was added by Onomamashinee (talk • contribs).

OK. See this diff. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 09:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

One doubt: I was born and live in Mexico (having lived in several cities, included Mexico City and Guadalajara) 44 yaers ago, and never, never, never, never, never have heard or read anyone refer a lime (I mean all sesnses and etymologies) as "limón"; where did you hear or read such term with that sense? how many people? (Renebeto (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC))Reply

Never heard it, but such a term must be RFVed before being deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for nominating ábrándvilág as a foreign word of the day. This looked to me like it was not a real word, but it turns out it is, so you taught me something new. – b_jonas 22:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Any chance of recording a pronunciation for it? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know; you'll have to do Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2013/December 1; it was vandalised and then deleted and it gives me a permission error when I try to recreate it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. It was vandalised twice! I wonder how those douchebags ran across that page specifically. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

How would I create this project on my userpage and manually link to the entries? Mary-Catherine (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Create a page like User:Mary-Catherine/Egyptian revolution dictionary and write the list of entries in it. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Am I doing it right? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It’s right. I made two alterations: the {{eye dialect of}} template has a parameter for the name of the dialect, and, as is the case of many Caipira words, it is used in the rest of Brazil as slang. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 09:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado. As for the definition, I suspect its use mirrors jermu; originally it meant "woman" with "wife/girlfriend" being a subsidiary use, but in slang the subsidiary and primary uses have flipped in frequency. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Está demasiado tarde para converter monges‽ --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pode ser daqui a duas horas? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seguro! Dormi excessivamente, assim estou tarde. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Como diz‐se «plasma rifle»‽ --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rifle de plasma. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bearing the brunt of the FWOTD work. Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, at my regional southeast accent loco as slang is spelled and speaked without u (not to say I consider it's the same way all the country, given louco spell being very formal and not transmitting the desired slanginess "shade"), Have I to everytime I include one slang include it as it's spelled and speaked usually as slang or have I to include it as presumably it should be spelled as a "formal" word? cause I thought loco as slang was slangily OK for inclusion and louco not that much. --Tchirruá (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Loco is a nonstandard spelling and the u is used even for the slang. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The spelling without u could be the nonstandard spelling of word louco for non-slang senses, however it is the standard spelling on slang use context (here resides the issue). As we disagree, and now seeing if I continue this conversation it will turn into a time consuming tiresome discution with nothing good coming out from it, a better providence is simply leave it as it is, no problem.

--Tchirruá (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any ideas about what to do with all of these? They are the product of EP's insistence that Latin required headings of the form 'Pronunciation n', n being a small integer, and Ullmann's frustration with the departure from ELE. I think membership in the category removes it from AF's and Kassadbot's attentions. I haven't looked at them in a while, but I could not find an appealing way of eliminating the headers in many cases. The question came up on my talk page. We could just let it go as an unadvertised exception. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Any chance you could create User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/es and User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/fr for me. Or tell us how to make it? (ideally the former...) --Back on the list (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

first time i've used google groups; i hope i cited Universal Unitarian correctly. Pass a Method (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The cite is valid, but the formatting could be improved. Try using {{cite-usenet}} or imitating its output. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The edit was for a reason. Several of the entries are under the wrong heading. Yumi includes the listener, while nós is indifferent. kwami (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Which is why it was on both tables. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Where'd you get these translations from? For the record, my wife claims it is ataúd, as in Spanish, but she's not a reliable source. --Back on the list (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

. This site rocks. Best online Asturian resource.

Thanks. I hadn't used that one before. I usually use this one, but the search function isn't so good, and it's all in Asturian. --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And how come your wife not a reliable resource? Isn’t she a native speaker? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, she's Asturian, but grew up almost predominantly on castellano (and sidra). --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

But she's lovely. --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a file that DerbethBot and I have been having a super-slo-mo edit war over. It sounds to me more like Italian than Portuguese, so I've been reverting DerbethBot every time it adds the file back. Derbeth tells me there's no way to stop the bot from adding the file, and suggested I request its deletion.

Before I do that, I'd like confirmation that it really is wrong: I only have a very rudimentary grasp of Portuguese pronunciation, and I know there's quite a bit of regional variation, so I don't want to rely on my own judgment. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is European Portuguese. If you want to be 100% sure, ask Liuscomaes (talk • contribs), who is Portuguese (or at least knows enough about Europen Portuguese to add loads of accurate pronunciations), but I don't see any reason to doubt it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Significam sapatos em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Não. Tinha o mesmo significado do hodierno. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

O que significa lenço em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Linho. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

O que significa sesta em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

O horário do meio-dia às três da tarde. Também é o feminino do ordinal sesto. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi There, I was wandering, what did you mean by this edit: IWs must be the same spelling. --CONFIQ (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

What you added is called an IW (interwiki link). The correct IW would be ] (but the Hebrew Wiktionary doesn’t have that entry, so it shouldn’t be added yet). Don’t worry about adding them, we have bots that do that automatically. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The pages that you sent have all been processed. How can I generate another one? Or could you generate me another? IF there's going to be a huge load at once, I think it'd be better. --Back on the list (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi again UM. I've been working my way through your Asturian page, and am nearly finished with it. Can you make me a new one please? --Back on the list (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it doesn't work. --Back on the list (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add this code to your custom js. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

What does the latter do? --Back on the list (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It makes the former work. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think it's cool now. Thanks a bunch! --Back on the list (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

In return, can you help me with a definition for Nazgul (in its figurative use in English)? I'm pretty sure my citations pass WT:FICTION. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can’t really think of how to word the definitions, but the 2007 and 2011 cites seem to be reminiscent of the Nazgul’s behaviour (getting something done violently, without regard for what’s in the way), while the 2012 one seems to be reminiscent of their appearance (covered in black).

There might be another sense: the actual creature. RPGs shamelessly copy Tolkien’s creatures so many pass the “independent of reference to that universe” clause. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 06:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I couldn't cite Huorn, but it looks like if it's achievable, it will only be thus because of RPGs. What do you think of google books:"Bilboesque"? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bilboesque added, though sadly I couldn’t cite the Bilbo Baggins sense, due to a bug in Google Groups. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That hurts a bit. I'm running out of LOTR terms that I can cite; tengwar and cirth don't seem to make it past WT:FICTION (although it's hard to say), but maybe some more of the names of the languages will, like Adûnaic (not sure how to apply the rules in a case like that). Sauron himself is up for grabs, in fact, and Sauronesque is almost there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There’s some hope for Uruk-Hai as a staple RPG creature. I’ll search for cites tomorrow if you don’t get to it first. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 08:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't get to it today. Incidentally, the word polyed comes up in one of your RPG citations and I haven't the foggiest what it means. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Abbreviation of polymorphed. Do you mind if I move this discussion to my talk page? It doesn’t have anything to do with Burzum or black metal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. I like abusing the Talk: namespace, since nobody at Wiktionary uses it much anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Regarding your revert. Each sense of term, or name, defines a different meaning of it. It doesn’t represent an individual referent, or some real entity.

Do we serve dictionary readers by listing 1,700 geographic locations called San José? Shall we also list all the guys named Bob in the dictionary entry Bob? —Michael Z. 2014-03-11 04:34 z

Proper nouns do. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your explanation is either incomplete, or I am misunderstanding it. Or are you implying that I should start adding many thousands of unique senses of the proper noun Walter? —Michael Z. 2014-03-11 16:55 z

No, the common practice is different for toponyms and names of people. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

We have never been entirely consistent about listing all the senses of placenames, or not listing them. Paris, for example, has only two senses, "the capital city of France" and "any place named after the French city"; Wonderfool's addition of a bunch of other Parises was reverted. And Abbeville has only "a town in Picardy, France" and "any of several towns in North America named either directly or indirectly after Abbeville, France". But other entries, like the diff of Odessa under discussion, do sometimes try to list all the Odessas.
Our approach to personal names is much more consistent: we never list the thousands of individual Walters, Bobs, etc.
Some discussion of both personal- and place-names exists on Talk:Victoria. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

So there isn’t exactly a common practice for place names. But I haven’t heard any argument that they are different from personal names. The only practical difference is that there are typically fewer specific referents, so it seems possible to copy an encyclopedic dictionary and try to list them. But this idea is a fallacy, and clearly breaks down when you consider that there are (purportedly) 1,700 places called San José.

Listing things, rather than defining terms is what Wikipedia already does, and doing so turns the dictionary into a gazetteer. There is nothing in our mandate to do so, and the redundancy harms the project. —Michael Z. 2014-03-12 18:47 z

Then start a BP discussion to explicitly ban it, or RFD the definitions you want to get rid of. You can’t unilaterally decide that something is bad and start removing occurrences of it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I’m trying to hold a discussion here. Why is it that you can unilaterally decide that something is good and start enforcing occurrences of it? Anyway, thanks for your time. —Michael Z. 2014-03-12 19:45 z

I didn’t decide that. Individualising definitions of places that share a name has been the common practice for a while. I actually oppose including places that are too minor; to my chagrin, my nomination of Liberdade for deletion, which is merely a subdivision of a neighbourhood, was opposed. But in your edit, you even removed the definition line for the oblast, which makes as much sense as replacing the definitions of New York with “ city ; the surrounding state”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It’s not the dictionary’s job to evaluate how major or minor places and things are – we define the terms used for all of them. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for the subjects of its articles, but we are defining terms, not things. If we did decide to incorporate the function of an encyclopedic dictionary – and I think competing with Wikipedia is a losing game at best – then we’d have to adopt Wikipedia’s notability guideline, or create and implement a new one to argue over. Better to just link to Wikipedia, no?

I removed the separate definition line for the oblast (more commonly “Odessa region”), although I still mentioned it, because it shares the name of its city. A dryer definition is “denoting, or related to, the city of Odessa in Ukraine; or a place named after it” (the oblast’s name falls under the first part of this definition). A sense line represents a meaning of a term, and not one of the specific things that the term refers to.

The SoP term Odessa Oblast doesn’t represent a unique sense at all, nor do Odessa Military District, Odessa International Airport, Gulf of Odessa, Odessa harbour. “Odessa” in isolation means the city. Exceptions are examples of ellipsis (“Which oblast? Odessa.”). —Michael Z. 2014-03-13 18:15 z

The details of my view about this are arguable. But the alternatives are to either start listing a bunch of things based on encyclopedic notability criteria (60 w:San Josés, and counting), or list all of them (1,980 San Josés, going by NGIA’s search). Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia’s partner dictionary. —Michael Z. 2014-03-13 17:33 z

These were added by Semper recently, and seem to be triggering script errors. Could you have a look? —CodeCat 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

About my change in that page, which was reverted by you, "primeiro de Abril" is definitely how the April Fool's Joke is called in portuguese, at least in Brazilian Portuguese. If you say "peixe de Abril" to any Brazilians whatsoever they will NOT understand you are talking about the April Fools' joke. Maybe "peixe de abril" is the norm in european portuguese, but it does not exist in brazilian portuguese. I would suggest leaving both "peixe de abril", if you are sure it is indeed used anywhere at all; and "primeiro de abril", the one and only way the joke is referred to in Brazil.

A própria piada é chamada de primeiro de abril? Não só o dia? Se sim, podemos readicioná-la. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sim, informalmente. De maneira semelhante ao inglês, onde a piada leva o nome do dia, o mesmo é comumente feito no português brasileiro onde as noções de primeiro de abril e da piada de primeiro de abril se confundem no falar informal. Embora eu deva concordar que, de fato, mais formalmente poderia se falar em "piada de primeiro de abril".

Readicionado. Também encontrei a variante primeiro-de-abril, mas não ouso colocar o contexto regional dessas expressões. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hope you're not calling me that. Just because I think things should be kept when others think they should be deleted doesn't make me a troll. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am, but it’s not because you think it should be kept. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of the reason, it's inaccurate, and in any way, a personal attack Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it is very much accurate. Pissing Mglovesfun off enough to make him leave was an eye-opener for me. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun leaving is no fault but his own. He chose to get pissed off at relatively minor things, such as a few votes here and there that maybe altered the outcome of 1-2 entries. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I won’t bother trying to change your mind if that’s what you really think, but I will keep my eyes open for similar behaviour. What MG said in your talk page is all true. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't, because, among other things, Mglovesfun accused me of being insane and said all I ever do is vote in discussion forums, when in fact I've created over 100 entries. You've essentially said you are going to HOUND me, which is disruptive Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I never said I will keep my eyes open for similar behaviour from you alone, though I expect it will come up too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi UM, can I have another Asturian dump please, like the one you put on that external page before? --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just a min. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

here. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant, thanks a lot. I'm not sure I'll have time to complete all of that work in my lifetime, though. --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okey. But please use the template Template:reply to, for the notification arrives me. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I recognize the distinction you draw (and am happy to learn it). But for this relatively recently arrived contributor to Wiktionary the distinction raises a question: What is the conventional purpose and scope of a Wiktionary entry's "Descendants" section? For one thing, it is clear that English gratuity and gratuitous are cognate to Latin gratis. And for another, the list of descendants to which I added them—and from which you deleted them—comprises a collection that provides scarce information, essentially only "Here are a bunch of languages that have adopted, and occasionally adapted, Latin gratis."

So, is it typical to include only an entry's "direct" descendants? I can appreciate that there is a benefit to that approach. But it does come at the cost of missing the opportunity to convey a different type of very useful information, namely the web of materteral words and the richness of those semantic and historical interrelationships.―PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the common practice is to include only the direct descendants of a word (direct in the lexical sense, not in the etymological sense; i.e. gratuity can be added as a descendant of gratuitas even though it came to English via Old French). Personally I think it’s good practice because it prevents unnecessary reduplication (gratuity would have to be included in the descendants section of all the Latin words that took part in the formation of the word gratuitas (gratuitas itself, as well as gratuitus, gratia and gratus). But if you feel Wiktionary would benefit from changing this practice, feel free to state your case at the Beer Parlour.

By the way, I’m glad you didn’t take this the wrong way. Beginners tend to make a hullabaloo whenever any of their contributions is questioned or undone. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Neste modelo {{gl-noun}} adicionaste o feminino e o plural do feminino. Mais neste modelo {{es-noun}} não existe plural do feminino, só existe um segundo plural de masculino. Podes adicionar o plural de feminino em {{es-noun}} como em {{gl-noun}}. Saudações. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Vivaelcelta está feito. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nas predefinições {{gl-noun}} e {{pt-noun}} ao escrever o feminino numa palavra masculina, já aparece automaticamente o feminino de plural, mais em {{es-noun}} não aparece automaticamente. Poderias consertar este problema? Saudações. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Já tentei, mas infelizmente não consegui. Talvez no futuro eu tente denovo, mas ainda há outras predefinições que preciso atualizar. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Esta tradução portuguesa é velha. É válida? E não diria‐se melhor como o habito não faz o monge? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

É válida. O hábito não faz o monge não é exatamente a mesma coisa. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Olá. Em espanhol ao ter unha frase de palavras como em programa de telerrealidad, no cabeçalho aparece automaticamente uma ligação a cada palavra, mais em galego não aparece, como em programa de telerrealidade. A ver se podes consertar este problema? Saudações e obrigado. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Verei o que posso fazer. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado. Eu acabo de adiciona-lo no módulo português Module:pt-noun. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The reason I removed the Dalmatian 'vaita' from the Latin 'vita' was because I thought that was added by accident. Is there another separate meaning of the Dalmatian word in the sense of "life"? I couldn't find anything on it. But 'vaita' in the sense of "vine" probably comes from a derivative of the Latin 'vitis' instead, with the ending changed like other nearby cognates. If there is another reason for keeping it there, then by all means. I was just wondering why it was there. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. From Bartoli’s Il Dalmatico:

• Page 276: El tiamp que sunt pesaint alla vaita — Il tempo è pesante alla vita
• Page 296: la resurezian della cuorno / la vaita etarna, cosisii
• Page 476: maledáta kola kapráina ke la me ju levùt la váita — maledetta la capra che mi ha preso la vita.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay thanks. That's actually pretty useful. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Está mensagem é prova. --Æ&Œ (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vlw. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I already issued a rangeblock for 2607:f140:400:2100::/56 (there was more vandalism at the same page from some other IPs in the range), so your block is redundant. Shame that MediaWiki does not show it on the IP's contributions pages or Special:Block, though. — Keφr 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Better safe than sorry. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blocking single IPv6 addresses doesn't really do much good. As far as I know, users are issued whole blocks of addresses at once, to use as they please. So only blocking the whole range actually blocks the user. —CodeCat 20:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

That sucks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have "Adds a CIDR Range Contributions check to Special:User contributions" checked on Per-Browser Preferences, which let's me do wildcard prefix searches in the form at Special:Contributions (there's a CIDR-range option, but I haven't figured out how to use it yet). It's text-based, so you have to have all the letters A-F for decimal 10-15 in uppercase, you have to have leading zeros the same as in the original IP, and 1* in IPv4 could be 100-127 or 10-19 or even 1. 2607:F140:400:21* shows 4 edits, and clicking on the IPs shows them to be blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am right in guessing that camião is more common in Portugal and caminhão in Brazil? --WikiTiki89 18:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

That’s right. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change my autopatrolled rights back? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lo Ximiendo has to follow the procedure at WT:WL. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I find Wiktionary to be very helpful as I learn Italian. But I am not a skilled editor. Thank you for helping me to help Wiktionary to become an even better resource. David

Hey. I’m learning Italian as well and I feel the same way. Don’t be afraid to edit entries; I was also unskilled when I started out, but we have this feature that causes edits by beginners to be marked as “unpatrolled”, so don’t worry too much about making mistakes as eventually an admin will check your contributions. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ungoliant, I just requested that an Italian entry for "confrontala" be created. I also created a UserTalk page. Maybe you could be to me as Virgil is to Dante. Aeolus3 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I’m not sure if entries for verb + enclitic pronouns (this is confronta + la) are allowed. I’ll leave this one to the people who tend WT:Requested entries (Italian). Cheers. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

But that makes it impossible to find this sense from deixar. Why not do what other dictionaries do and put the meanings with mandatory prepositions in a sublemma under the main lemma?

I’ve added a derived terms section at deixar linking to deixar de. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you block User:Shaymaa with an expiry time of indefinite just for one bad edit? It's really not any of my business but unless he created a ton of nonsense pages which were deleted (which I cannot see because I don't have sysop privileges), then I don't know why (s)he is indeffed. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Their only edit was to post a glasses-selling website advertisement to Wiktionary talk:Requested entries (English). With that start, it is quite doubtful (to say the least) that they came here to write anything relevant. — Keφr 05:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why are you defending spammers? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to figure out the ways of Wiktionary. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK. An important thing to remember is that we’re not scared to bring the banhammer down on vandals and spammers! We don’t have this hippie system like they do in Wikipedia where vandals get to vandalise content a bunch of times before being blocked. Sadly, we don’t have enough sysops to run such a system. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I edited some forms of the Portuguese verb datar with {{pt-verb form of}}. Is a bot needed to standardise the rest into that template? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It’s not a priority. Anyway, I don’t use {{pt-verb form of}} anymore, just {{pt-verb-form-of}}. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

So should there be a vote to get rid of the former and keep the latter? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion on that, TBH. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

So I'm taking that it's a matter of preference. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Besides, I filled in the yellow links of the Portuguese verb aromatizar. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because I don't abuse them. By our present (lack of) rules, I have never abused rollback, so there's no reason to take it away. I also consider your blanket "I don't understand policy" to be in error. I just want this project to go in a different direction than the Gods do. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

So far 100% of your rollbacks have been bad. Keep that up and they will be removed sooner or later. I never said you don’t understand policy. My guess is that you understand them, but intentionally ignore them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

What rollback policy do they violate that makes them "bad"? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The unwritten “try not to mess things up if you don’t know what you are doing” policy. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

...which you just made up after I backed you into the corner that is you not having a reason to take away my rollback rights. Just give that issue a rest, OK? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I just used common sense. If you’re having trouble understanding, let me make it explicit for you: do not mess things up if you don’t know what you are doing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are numerous policies that go against that though: Being bold, plunging forward... Also, you being an admin doesn't give you the right to boss me around. I'm done talking to you, off to do more of whatever I want.

Hey guess what, you're not the only person who is allowed to "be bold". And if you insist on constantly turning everything into policy politics, maybe you should stop quoting Wikipedia-only (not-Wiktionary) policies as reasons for things you do: I've seen that happen a few times, including in an edit summary today. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Equinox, you're between a rock and a hard place with you're last statement. On the one hand, you accuse me of using Wikipedia policies rather than Wiktionary policies. On the other hand, it being a comparative wild, wild west out here means I have violated no policies. I, for one, have come to the belief that the lack of carry-over of some Wikipedia policies to here is arbitrary. You may not think that way, but I do, and thinking that way is perfectly acceptable and in no way grounds for blocking, sanctioning or removal of rollback Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Discussion of my editing doesn't really have anything to do with BRD. It doesn't belong in the same thread. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ungoliant (I assume) reverted it not because he doesn't think the thread should be split, but because you gave it a ridiculous heading. --WikiTiki89 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, why don't you split it with a different heading? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the other etymologies? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I’m writing you a message. Hold on. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

While searching for random things in Google Books, in A New Portuguese Grammar in Four Parts (1768) (I love when old books have the word "new" in their titles), I came across the word vm., which seemingly means "you" or "sir". For example, Como eſtá vm. ? translated as "How do you do, ſir?" and Beijo as maõs de vm. translated as "I kiſs your hand.". Do you know what it is an abbreviation of? I was thinking você, but there is no "m" in você. Can you create an entry for it? --WikiTiki89 22:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Possibly vosmecê or vossemecê. Both are intermediate forms in the transition from vossa mercê (“your mercy”) to você. I imagine the um is due to the non-differentiation between V and U in the past. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks! ("v" was always used at the beginning of the word, which is why I was unsure about whether it meant "v" or "u"). --WikiTiki89 22:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

After having a second look at the page, it seems the um. is vm. in excessively round italics. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I did not mean to make this mistake again. I was tired and it was late at night. Thank you for fixing it for me though. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don’t need to apologise for mistakes that minor, but it’s good to see you are checking your watchlist for corrections to your edits. BTW, see this. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually I did not know you could do that with the l template. Thanks for letting me know.

I actually check my watchlist quite regularly, pretty much all the time. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Me too. There are over 29000 pages in my watchlist, dayum! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do a lot of editing after work when I'm tired and my ADD medication has worn off, so I have my share of face-palms, but I also constantly learn from corrections to my edits, even after a couple of years of this. The most important thing about corrections and criticisms is to not take them personally, but to try and learn from them. Even when someone is being unfair and vicious, the first thing they do is look for your weaknesses- which aren't easy for you to see. That's not to say you should uncritically accept them, rather you should look into them in order to understand what's behind them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice, and I too have a disorder, I am on the autism spectrum. I really wish I could help to implement some things here that we are missing. Such as Danish verb forms, we are missing the entire passive tense and the future tense (see WT:Grease Pit), and I really want this to be fixed. But how do I convince people to listen to me about this? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 23:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

What exactly do you need? I may be able to help. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You just fixed up my edit to that entry and indicated that the plural is "papissas"; but the word is from Medieval Latin papissa, whose plural would (I assume) be papissae. It is used (in the singular) in English here: p. xvi. ―67.5.172.205 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Thanks! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

WritersCramp (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No thank you. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you having fun stalking me through my "User contributions"? 1, 2, 3 WritersCramp (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

He is not being a dick. He is simply restoring your edits to a version that he likes. It's not stalking; on wikis, people patrol edits all the time. I can understand your anger but you have to understand that this is a wiki where people's individual edits are sometimes patrolled just for the heck of it, to help improve this wiki. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks RSY. It doesn’t have to do with me liking them though, it has to do with the fact that entries should be properly formatted and not have incorrect information. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nice try, but I was patrolling the unpatrolled edits. And if you don’t want your edits to be fixed, don’t make edits that need fixing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply