User talk:Vildricianus/Archive4

Have you noticed that monobook is red-linked? Does it have a meaning outside of Wiki? - or could you give it a Wiki definition? SemperBlotto 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have - I'm afraid it's just the name of MediaWiki's default skin and that's it. Perhaps with the idea of user-friendliness we should make it a redirect to the WT:CUSTOM page like Newnoise intended to do. —Vildricianus 09:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I'm compiling a list of Dutch strong verbs. I was wondering, though, whether we could compile a comparative list with the various Germanic languages together. I'm not sure of the design yet, but it'd be great to have Old English in it as well. What do you think? (I got the idea from here). —Vildricianus 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's do-able, but there's thousands of them! I am pretty into my etymologies, and virtually everything listed in Category:Old English strong verbs has Dutch cognates included in the entries (where they exist). So there's plenty of material around to do it. Let me know if I can help. Widsith 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed, thousands. It won't be for next week, though. I'll have a good thought about them, and think how we can tackle it best; I'll do some reading and stuff. Apart from that, you're doing an awesome job for Old English; it's brilliant to see how the language is related to Dutch, I've never known that. If only I had some more time! Cheers. —Vildricianus 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For one thing "abstract" only has one etymology for all forms. The other thing is that all those "ttbc" categories at the top of a page really make it look ugly. Eclecticology 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said I could ask you questions about this stuff, so here goes. I've just discovered that the loading of per-user js and css is evidently not a part of stock mediawiki; it's not working in my home installation. Do you know what file I'd change to add those special loads? (I can probably find it if I grep hard enough, but it might be easier to ask.) –scs 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. It may be a hook or extension, compare your Version for that. It may (more likely) also be a setting in LocalSettings.php. You can search Meta for this, but a less time-consuming thing to do is post to mediawiki-l. — Vildricianus 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your comment on Wiktionary talk:Administrators looks like it was misplaced? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. Why? Should it go on the Wiktionary: page? — Vildricianus 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you have a moment, could you take a look at the use of the ParserFunctions in there? Demonstration on its talk page. What do you think? Can it be simplified further? Recommendations? I'm already lost in {{en-infl-verb}}, that goes beyond me! — Vildricianus 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure! You want it to support 1-9 parameters, right? Rod (A. Smith) 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not really; I guess 4 is enough for its purpose (that is, always at least one and three additional ones). While I was creating it, I was wondering whether it could be done any simpler. It works right now, but I was just wondering. Could run your eyes over the process there? Thanks. — Vildricianus 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. One more thing, it seems like a good place for the "serial comma". Would it be OK for me to use that? Rod (A. Smith) 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following would be a more flexible starting point if we ever wanted the template to accept more parameters:

==Citations of '']''<!--

// Separate most items with ",", but the final one with " and"

-->{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<!--
  -->{{#if:{{{3|}}}|,| and}} '']''<!--
  -->{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<!--
    -->{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,|{{,}} and}} '']''<!--
    -->{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<!--
      -->{{,}} and '']''<!--
-->}}}}}}==

That paradigm allows each new optional parameter to add only a little code:

{{#if:{{{5|}}}|,|{{,}} and}} '']''{{#if:{{{5|}}}|

Since the template only needs 4 parameters, though, there's no clear benefit to changing it. Rod (A. Smith) 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Rod, that tells me another couple of things about them ParserFunctions I didn't know. I've replaced the old code with this. It was more or less what I had written first, but it got too complicated because I didn't know that it wasn't necessary to specify the else parameter in #if. — Vildricianus 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My experience is that for issues like this, flexibility to increase no of parameters is usually a very good thing (unless you consider it wise to reduce the possibility of future overcomplication!). --Enginear 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. Another point is making sure that the people who come after us still understand what we were intending to do. — Vildricianus 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just done withstand and twenty for you. --Dvortygirl 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. Of course, I do have IRC. This conversation could as easily have happened there. :-) --Dvortygirl 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Something is wrong with the BP template, I think. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not really. It's just that it is used on each page, and that each page has redlinks to the upcoming archives. I'll delink them. — Vildricianus 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should be gone at next maintenance run. Thanks for notifying. — Vildricianus 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! I was going too quickly to notice that they were future pages. Maybe you should change it back? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This look copyvio-ish to you? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Possibly. Can't confirm. Benefit of the doubt. — Vildricianus 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not. Why don't you ask me directly instead of going behind my back? Also take a look at my language skills, then you'll see that I speak a little Russian. Now and then I come across some interesting words, and will try to tell these in my own words. I stumbled upon this word because I'm planning to visit the Sheremetyev estate when I'm on vacation (and Petr Borisovich Sheremetev was famous for having an entire orchestra of serfs). His son Nicolai even married the lead actress and singer, Praskovya Kovaleva. Errabee 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Then you definitely have a better prospect than I have! Enjoy your stay there, I've heard about it. Should get there, too.

Please don't take this accusation too personally. We get a lot of dubious content, so we're on the lookout. — Vildricianus 21:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Het lijkt erop dat we elkaar wel vaker tegen zullen komen :) Errabee 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick query: why did you protect my userpage? Thanks and regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Admin's page. Usually protected. Unprotect if you disagree. — Vildricianus 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will do, thanks! Is there a page documenting why it's done here? I only query because it's frowned upon on the Engish Wikipedia. Regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't have such rules here, fortunately. Administrator pages are vandal magnets, though. — Vildricianus 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not a rule by any means, and semi-protection isn't uncommon. I just remember it because it came up in someone's RfB, that's all. Personally, I prefer to leave it unprotected so that (a) People can add translations if they so wish; (b) I often make typos, and spotting these isn't limited to Admins; (c) I'm always here to revert if I am vandalised. I'll reconsider if I start becoming a vandal magnet, though, for sure. Thanks! — Celestianpower ^háblame 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had better concentrate on the main namespace, though, than doing all these things. My edit ratio main vs. non-main is decreasing steadily over the months. 13.2 in January, 4.8 in February, 1.4 in March, 0.85 in April, 0.4 in May. I'll attempt something like 15 for July. — Vildricianus 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the change you just made to my user page (tsk, tsk), should we consider removing that thing, or is it still a tiny bit useful? The only think I still use from it is Gallery of images, but now that we are 99% commons, that seems silly too. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hadn't I made it, there would be a redirect thing displaying. You should be grateful :-). Dunno, I never use the Main Page. I have my doubts about how useful or well-ordered all the links are over there. Perhaps I'll take a look at them, but probably not. Or I could try entering Wikt in cognito, as a newcomer, and see what happens. I'd probably get blocked by someone. — Vildricianus 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, I am grateful for the fix - I was making a general "tsk tsk" about changing other's talk pages.  :-) Regarding your block, just say the word, and I'll reblock you.  :-) Perhaps you could block me for a couple hours, just for shits and giggles.

These days, I think Main Page/Specialpageslinks is not worth having on Main Page. It has outlived its usefulness, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to do away with it. Hereafter, I'm going to concentrate on ns:0, adding content, for I haven't done so in a long while. Apart from doing some newcomers' help pages revamping then. So I might take on the MP as well. Mmm. Seems like I'm going to be distracted pretty soon again :-). — Vildricianus 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw your question on Connel's talk page about the quotations format. You may want to have a look at Wiktionary:Quotations#How to format a quotation, which I updated just now, reflecting what is more or less current practice. Keep up the good work. Cheers! — Vildricianus 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your quotations updates look fine with one exception. You removed the year from the example of a second quotation. Unfortunately, this makes no sense. Quotations should span the full range of centuries from most oldest known use to a very recent example. As a result, publication year is very important for each quote. Please reconsider. Rklawton 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, can't see any missing years... Are you talking about the Chip Morningstar example? — Vildricianus 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rick, can you try to email me, just to see if my email is working. I don't particularly want to talk to you, but I'm wondering if the "email this user" function finally works. Ta --Dangherous 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And that wasn't meant to sound rude, ;) --Dangherous 16:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Vild, I never noticed that little link before. Jonathan Webley 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Was that a hint? :P. I'll be on it when I get home... Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. — Celestianpower ^háblame 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I started checking these, from the most recent...they all seem to need some attention. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe I am current through June twenty-somethingth, and I see there have been new additions since, so I'll go do those as soon as I can. Real life asserted itself in no uncertain terms in the past couple of days, though. Are you aware of a particular red-linked WOTD audio for June? If so, please let me know. In doing upwards of 2500 recordings by hand, I do occasionally miss a step. --Dvortygirl 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I had discussed {{see}}; that was HT's suggestion! --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries dude. I wanted to double check, because it used to work. Someone must have broken it. — Vildricianus 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What are the formats that templates of this form generate?

I'm curious to know if (for example) "plural of x" is included. If so, I would like to object to it. In printed (that is, non-wikified text), which becomes "plural of x", which is unacceptable. The word being inflected must be shown to as being quoted rather than used; the wikificiation alone of both "plural" and "x" is not sufficient to do this. Hence "plural of x", "plural of x" and "plural of x", wikified as appropriate, are all acceptable, but plain unadorned "plural of x" is not. (I would not be keen on "plural of "x"" as it is preferable to use typographic style (italicisation, emboldening) to distinguish the word than to use quotation marks.

I hope I'm not too late to argue this point.

By the way, are you aware that your link "— Vildricianus", which links to "My Page", links to the reader 's page, not to your (Vildricianus's) page? You probably need to rethink that one.

Please could you reply on my user page. Thanks. — Paul G 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's never too late. The discussion was here, which explains it better than I could. The point of these templates is that they allow for personal customization, to make sure everyone sees what they like to see, be it bolded, italicized or normal text.

And yes, the Special:Mypage link was an old joke :-). I've got rid of it. — Vildricianus 09:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's up with all the personal attacks? RFD has a purpose, you know. Everyone should be able to nominate an entry without getting all that nonsense in replies. — Vildricianus 10:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominating words for deletion is one thing - though I think there is a huge amount of personal bias in what gets nominated, since 90% of the words accepted into Wiktionary do not meet CFI. But deleting words instantly, then redeleting them and hiding them when another administrator reinstates them for further discussion. That is ABUSE. My attacks on Connel are out of shear frustration for the way he is so damn autocratic. But they stay at the level of debate really, not simple abuse. I mostly give reasonns for my attack. Connel just takes unilateral bowdlerisation action, completely abusing his powers, the agreed processes, everything. I tried for a few weeks, in an off-line conversation, to concentrate on what he is good at. But no, I even think he's started stalking my work now, as well as others he has stalked before. And he no longer just deletes a word, he moves it then delete's it, so it is no longer traceable. Completely against any policy or etiquette. —This unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 June 2006.

For one thing - and that's regardless of whether anyone is being autocratic here - you shouldn't make personal attacks. I find it highly disturbing that a newbie like me should tell these things to an oldbie like you. After all those years of being around here, you should know that they don't help and that they make your comments absolutely worthless.

On your other accusations I will not reply, since they make little sense. If there are severe cases of abuse you should offer evidence for them, not random allegations. And if he's following your contribs he's got a good reason to, for they are most of the time not very well formatted. — Vildricianus 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You try finding the entry for whorebagger, so you might be able to make your own judgement. You'll find Connel has hidden it. While whorebagger might not be a very worthy word, by what right does Connel decide to not only delete an entry, but hide it from other administrators. This is not the only word he has done this with. Why does someone who behaves like that deserve the benefit of the doubt any longer. --Richardb 09:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a kind of experimental practice that I don't agree with either. I'll ask him. Will I need to make personal attacks? Make accusations? Not at all. BTW, it's not "hidden". It's just moved. OTOH, your behaviour makes it very difficult for everyone to approach any comments of yours in a neutral, civilized way. You might want to tone down a bit and re-state your gripes in a less offending manner if you want to be taken into account. — Vildricianus 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not to take sides here, but it is hidden, and very well so. (I can't find the former whorebagger text, either. It's not at Wiktionary:Deleted nonsense, and it's not at Wiktionary:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.) —scs 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course, you're not a sysop. Deleted things aren't visible for non-sysops. — Vildricianus 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah. So it wasn't "hidden" or "moved", it was deleted. I understand. (But that's not what Connel said at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=whorebagger&action=history.) —scs 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Erm, he first moved the stuff, then recreated it into a redirect and protected it. The last two steps are what is normally done, but I don't know why he first needed to move it. — Vildricianus 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My point was just that where he said he moved it to, "Wiktionary:Deleted nonsense", doesn't exist. —scs 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

He didn't say it, he moved it, which generates an automatic summary. After the move, he deleted Wiktionary:Deleted nonsense. — Vildricianus 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you really mind, here's the entry:

<snip> (no need for it)

— Vildricianus 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yowza. Word-for-word identical with http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whorebagger. Thanks. —scs 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you have an idea of how it can be made waterproof? Currently, it bugs when the vandal's name consists of more words:

• Willy's new computer (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)

Do you have a clue? — Vildricianus 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a native wiki syntax for the "page moves" link or for the "block log" link. Without a native wiki syntax, we would need StringFunctions or some other way of URL encoding the arguments to those links. Rod (A. Smith) 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Warning. I can't think of a specific way to compromise this template, but in general, it's dangerous to use unvalidated arguments. There may be a way for a vandal to construct a user name that would cause clicking on a link produced by this template to cause an admin to do something very bad. Rod (A. Smith) 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your pointing me to StringFunctions solved it all. We seem to have them. — Vildricianus 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well done. I'm glad to learn we actually do have StringFunctions. Your URL-encoding of the argument effectively protects against the danger I noted above. We should ensure that all of our administration templates (and especially the counter-vandalism templates) URL encode their arguments whenever they use them in URLs. Rod (A. Smith) 19:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this word is actually properly placed in lowercase - just based on the Russian Wikipedia's article, it seems to always be used in the uppercase (perhaps considered a proper noun or a place name?). bd2412 T 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you know, it's just the Russian word for universe. It could be uppercase just as much Universe could. Nothing special here. — Vildricianus 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stalker! Ok, I believe you if you say so. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Yoda. :-) —scs 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Minor flag: done. (The code was already written; just had to invoke it.) —scs 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does this constitute it, and what would you do? Davilla 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Rollback and block for 1 day. — Vildricianus 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message in my talk page. I now realize that the message I initially received might have been generated by a bot (this is by far the best way to explain it). But I really think that, in such cases, it should be made very clear in the message that it was automatic. Also, bots should not be made admins... :-) Lmaltier 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Huh? Which message is that? The Welcome message? — Vildricianus 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, I was referring to the Connel MacKenzie warning message. Lmaltier 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, no, that was just Connel, not a bot :-). We don't use bots for messages here. — Vildricianus 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you think of something, please let me know. I've asked before (a long time ago) in Beer Parlour and the primary result was that nobody had a better idea. There are only three or four such entries now, so they'd be very easy to move or change at this point. --Dvortygirl 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you create the User:DAVilla account? — Vildricianus 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I created the account because Davilla wanted it. I thought "why does he want an empty account when he is an admin and already has 2 accounts?". So now it is not empty.... Actually, now I think of it, that was stupid. I don't understand. --Brandnewuser 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the result is that he can't get it now. Users can't be renamed to existing accounts. I guess it's no big deal, though, he'll find a new one, but please be careful in the future. Cheers. — Vildricianus 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, according to w:Wikipedia:Changing username, it is still possible to usurp an existing account so long as no edits have been made from it. bd2412 T 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Correct, but then developer intervention is needed, right? And AFAIK, no WP bureaucrat endorses it. — Vildricianus 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

BJAODN, at least, is not specifically Wiktionary jargon; it originated on Wikipedia. So I'd either like to change it back to {{tag|Wiki jargon}} or, if there is no Wiktionary-specific jargon anywhere, change the expansion of {wjargon} from "Wiktionary jargon" to "Wiki jargon". —scs 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mmm. Someone will be smart enough to nominate these for deletion, though. Most are also WP, indeed, but it's too bothersome to change the category if they'll get deleted anyway. — Vildricianus 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to figure out what you were trying to do on you April 26th edit to this template. Not only did it have the effect of removing the correct category, it added a line break which in etymology sections, can be pretty bad, farmatting wise. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was categorizing these templates, remember? Instead of rolling back you could have removed the spurious line break in there, which is caused by some bug in the includeonly and noinclude tags. — Vildricianus 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vildricianus,

I've noticed you using the slippery-slope argument a few times on the Requests for deletion page... you might not have seen this section in the Criteria for inclusion. — Paul G 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Be sure, I've read every single paragraph of WT:CFI. I don't think the slippery slope is something that can be applied in the case of the OED. Could you point me to any other instances where I used it? — Vildricianus 11:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If I block for an hour, and then you block for infinity, what is the final duration of the block? Kipmaster 11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

1 hour. Shortest block wins. These should really be infinite. — Vildricianus 11:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

ok. Well, that's stupid, but I don't know how to unblock/reblock a user. Can you take care of  ? Kipmaster 11:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Admins should really know that :-). Special:Ipblocklist. You should unblock first, then re-block. — Vildricianus 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know, that's just I never had to unblock a user, and can't find the button :p Kipmaster 11:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. If you ever need to unblock someone for real, you may have to unblock an auto-blocked IP address as well from that page. — Vildricianus 11:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Really, it's weird, the block button can be accessed from a lot of links. But the unblock, only from this page? Kipmaster 11:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Rob Church is doing some reworking of the block mechanics and I hope it'll be a bit better afterwards. — Vildricianus 11:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's a system predating yours: Category:RFV result with Template:rfvResult. Could you merge some stuff or else delete it? Failed RFVs should be in Wiktionary:Requests for verification/archive, right? Cheers. — Vildricianus 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have asked somebody clever to do the merge. (Sounds like survivor doesn't it?) If I use the template rfvResult where do I put it? On the talk page of the article and then save the talk page? Andrew massyn 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you've got a preference for plain Verb over Intransitive verb or Transitive verb. :-)

My plan was first to totally noncontentiously get everything normalized to Verb/Transitive verb/Intransitive verb, and then somewhere down the road figure out what the consensus was on where to indicate transitivity. But if you're going to follow the bot around like this, I may have to rethink my strategy...

(You realize we've got something like 1600 Transitive verbs and 1000 Intransitive verbs, right?) —scs 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I knew you'd post :-). No. Keep your bot doing harmless work. Hardly anyone would consider ===Verb (transitive)=== --> ===Transitive verb=== to be cheeky. ===Transitive verb=== --> ===Verb=== would certainly evoke agitation. It's best someone does it manually, gradually phasing out them (in)transitive verb headers. The bot could do the less dodgy edits then :-). As for the counts... no problem. I've subst'ed thousands of templates manually already. Now my javascript is helping, so once I really have the time, it will go a lot faster. — Vildricianus 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

> It was my intention to display a nice red link.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting that you have an even wryer/dryer sense of humor than I do. :-)

> Ask Connel how many bots he runs

Already did, earlier today. Eight. Yow.

scs 00:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The more I look at this, the more confused it gets. At my local library - the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology has -

Neognathae - a suborder of the subclass Neornithes of class Aves

Odontognathae - ditto

but under Aves it has

Class Aves

Subclass Sauriurae

Infraclass Archaeopteryformes (my spelling mistake?)

Infraclass Enantiornithes

Subclass Ornithuriae

Infraclass Odontornithes

Infraclass Neornithes

Superorder Ambiortmorphae

Superorder Incerta Sedis

Superorder Palaeognathae

Superorder Neognathae

lots of Orders

Wikispecies gives you a choice of two structures under Aves, neither are quite like this!

McGraw-Hill does say "the taxonomy is in a state of flux"! SemperBlotto 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are certainly different options when naming a ranking depending on which perspective one views from (upwards versus downwards, or something like that), even within the same classification system. Other systems then may differ greatly from either naming structure. I'll have another look after dinner. — Vildricianus 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was in Flanders at the weekend. I got confused. Is Flemish the same as Dutch? Or is it a different language altogether? I always thought it was just what they called Dutch in Belgium, but I met a couple from Haarlem who said they couldn't understand a thing. Widsith 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Depends. Usually, it just denotes Dutch as it is spoken in the entire region of Flanders, i.e. the north of Belgium. In that capacity, some people like to call it a language, but it isn't. Compare Portuguese in Portugal and Portuguese in Brazil. Lots of different details and quite a different pronunciation, but not a different language.

Sometimes, Flemish can also denote the dialect spoken in the provinces of East and West Flanders, the westernmost of the Flanders region. These are just dialects of course. — Vildricianus 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yow! You just went and did it! Cool. (Talk about being bold. :-) ) —scs 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't do it, brion did it :-P — Vildricianus 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I figured he was involved, but presumably someone went and asked him... —scs 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

True. bugzilla:6476 is teh word. — Vildricianus 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, nice job. Thanks. —scs 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, yeah. Nice job Vild! --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see talk page. —scs 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where was that categories tool you found somewhere on toolserver? I can't even find your link to it, nor what conversation it was even in. --Connel MacKenzie T C

 ? Linked to from Special:Categories. — Vildricianus 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert what I wrote? You could not possibly have had enough time to check thoroughly whether I was correct or not. Doremítzwr 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eh? What happened there? Doremítzwr 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually I did check all these fancy plurals but I reckoned to give you some more time, so I reverted myself again. — Vildricianus 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've answered you on my talk page. Doremítzwr 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to do Italian? If not, I'll try to figure out the steps you take, and do it myself. SemperBlotto 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Italian is still pretty far off... Hebrew, Hellenic, Indonesian... Any help is welcome. I'm not sure yet how to optimally use any templates but that can be figured out later on. Thanks. — Vildricianus 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply