User talk:Williamsayers79

• 2006

I think you should mention that your IPA transcription is for the American pronunciation. The British one doesn't have the same phoneme in the first syllable.zigzig20s 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can I ask why you reverted my edits to cow? Fair enough, I was not logged in at the time, but they were legitimate (in my view) and not vandalism. I will restore them - if you feel anything needs changing, please edit my edit. Thanks. — Paul G 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I probably suspected someting amiss, however since it was your good self I'm not concerned, please accept my appologies for any hassle caused.--Williamsayers79 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's OK, William, no problem. Thanks for getting back to me. — Paul G 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi William,

You are maintaining the Category:Etymology templates, so to be sure: have you added a language parameter to any of them yet? Otherwise, I would start doing this, beginning with {{L.}}. Cheers, henne 11:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have not started that yet, if you would like to do that please go ahead, I assume you will use something along the lines of {{L.|sco}} to give - category:sco:Latin derivations and that the abscence of the parameter we would get - category:Latin derivations, for example.--Williamsayers79 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did {{L.}}. It takes an optional second parameter which is the abbreviation of the language. It behaves like you describe.

I will do the other templates eventually, when I hit them. henne 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan Batman! I'll do which ever ones I come across also. Eventually we'll get them all.--Williamsayers79 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good Thing©®! I think the format in {{L.}} is good, I propose we just copy it out of there every time (and add <includeonly> tags where necessary). henne 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like the best idea, thats all I've been doing anyway!--Williamsayers79 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw you added brackets to the argument of {{plural of}}, like this: {{plural of|]|lang=Romanian}}. Why is this? What is the use? Shouldn’t this be documented on the template’s talk page? henne 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apparently its what were suposed to do, I've had many a plural article I've created myself changed by one of Connel's Bots. So every now and again when I come across one myself I'll add them in.--Williamsayers79 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

At this point in time, it is done just for consistency. At the time the bot made the mass change, the category was also being moved about, (from entries to template, back to entries and such) while a glitch in how WM counts articles caused the total article count to "jump" up or down seemingly randomly. By including a wikified term, the articles remained "counted" (to be further broken out at some point in Wiktionary:Statistics.) For consistency, when we discussed it on IRC, we decided that it was easier just to have them all wikified, so that wherever the category ended up, the "total count" would stop jumping up and down. I thought the template documentation was changed to recommend that. It may have been lost in the shuffle (the recurring wheel-warring was over Category:English nouns; that caused quite a bit of consternation.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, Category:English plurals is the related category for the plural forms. English nouns is just what set off the fireworks. --Connel MacKenzie 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are optional in the template; precisely so that we can wikilink something in the entry. If the entry already has a wikilink somewhere else, it matters not. But when the template is used, it is often the only definition line in the entry, hence almost always linked. Robert Ullmann 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers guys! --Williamsayers79 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I was looking out for templates for collapsible tables of derived and related terms, and Connel tells me you created {{rel-top}}, etc. A few questions:

• I take it these are intended to be used for derived terms too, as there are no der-top, etc.
• I think that there should be no text in the box, as "Related terms" just repeats what is in the header immediately above - the header needs to be there, but the text in the box doesn't, in my view.
• If the text is removed from the box, could the "Show/Hide" link be moved to the left to make it more noticeable?

What do you think? I would make these changes myself but don't understand the syntax well enough to do this. — Paul G 10:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just ripped it off from the {{trans-top}}, {{trans-mid}} and {{trans-bottom}} templates. I might get round to this at some point but fell free to poke about with them. --Williamsayers79 09:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I just saw you removed spacing in headings I made. Why is this? I think the space after and before the =’s is easy, since that way you can e.g. select the text inside it with Ctrl+Shift+left/right, which otherwise includes the =’s too. AFAIK, it doesn’t make a difference in the rendering. See e.g. this edit. henne 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see what you mean now, I've always assumed that we didn't put any spacing in there, it doesn't affect how the pages render, although in the past (before adminhood) I'd noticed my own contribs changed by admins and followed suit - a bit sheepish maybe. I might just be me being anal as the folks across the pond say. Sorry if I've caused you any concern.--Williamsayers79 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall Connel saying something about spaces confusing bots, but that may just have been spaces at the end of a header line rather than inside the ==s (where I tend to use them myself and haven't noticed many reversions). --Enginear 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spaces after the second === (whatever number) or comments etc. break the numbering for section editing. There shouldn't be anything after the closing ='s. (and yes, that was what Connel was on about, IIRC ;-) Robert Ullmann 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

ELE reads "... {{trans-mid}} halfway down (which is typically, but not always, between the languages beginning with A-I and those beginning with J-Z) ..." (emphasis mine). Isn't it better to balance the two columns and minimize blank space, rather than always putting the mid between Italian and Japanese? Or perhaps I'm missing the meaning here. Cynewulf 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Usually I've just assumed that the tables would not be lop-sided once the {{trans-mid}} was placed under anything starting with I. My assumption is probably not always correct. I'll check more often from now on - hope I ahve not offended any one too much with anlly retentive edits :-) --Williamsayers79 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked about this Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Language categories which is where the 1st answer said that parts of speech get the full language name and topics get the code. The discussion that followed seemed to confirm this. So I hope my editing was OK! —Saltmarsh 09:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

and I now realise that I probably misread your query? I removed the indexing because

1. there was a mixture of indexed and unindexed so I had to go one way or the other.
2. with only TWO (Greek and el) initial letters present it gave a better layout with just 2 columns. —Saltmarsh 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is it better to have the citations on another page? zigzig20s 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although there are no hard and fast rules about seperate citations pages, I feel that it makes things a little tidier to list the cites on a seperate pages. If you visit WT:PREFS you can enable an option to show the citations page as a tabe like the history or talk page. Usually I've only moved cites to make things seem a bit neater.--Williamsayers79 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, that is William's personal view. There is no consensus. Many of us support an alternative view that citations should be added under each definition, to help clarify the meaning of that definition and to give a clue as to the time span when it is/was used. And a further group support a separate Citations section below the definitions section. --Enginear 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm sorry I should have made it clear that it was my personal view point above.--Williamsayers79 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not change the location of the rhymes templates. They are currently listed consistently in the same location following the {{audio}} template as specified in the WT:ELE. If you change the location on some pages, it will make later automated searches and parsing more difficult. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I shall try to fix any I've moved. Regards. --Williamsayers79 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copied from User talk:Krun

I noticed that you changed the tmeplate used on the definition line of shitten under the Verb POS heading to {{past participle of}} from {{past of}}. I originally changed it to {{past of}} in line with inflections listed on the infinitive form article shit, where shitten is given as the simple past and past participle of shit. Which is correct?--Williamsayers79 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly not, and has certainly not been, a standard simple past, since -(e)n is not a simple past ending in any Germanic language (including Old and Modern English). Maybe in some wierd dialect somewhere… but the natural formation should be:

shit - shit/shat - shitten (strong declension)

shit - shitted - shitted (weak declension),

where the strong declension is older, and the weak is newer. A mixed up declension could also develop (e.g. shit - shit - shit, shit - shat - shat, or shit - shat - shitted), which can be due to one form being used more in a certain area, or being used in a set phrase. The modern past participle shit/shat is also in line with the merger of simple past and past in other strong verbs such as let - let - let or sit - sat - sat (a change which was probably due to the increased prominence of weak verbs and the fact that these two forms had already merged in weak verbs and ).

I also notice that in the template used for the verb declension at shit, there is only a single field for simple past and past participle. I will try to fix this…

Well, that should be enough for now… sorry for the long rant :P – Krun 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting that out, you know a lot more about verbs than me! --Williamsayers79 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey, I noticed your edits to some categories which I added (as sub-categories}} to the category:io:Parts of speech, category:na:Parts of speech where you removed the offending links. I do agree with you that they were messy the way I'd added them but I did this because I was replacing for example category:io:Pronouns with category:Ido pronouns and copied across the link to category:io:Parts of speech. Since we are replacing the categories such as category:io:Pronouns with category:Ido pronouns do we need to keep the category category:io:Parts of speech if it is just going to be orphaned?--Williamsayers79 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we keep those categories. See Category:nl:Parts of speech to see how the category is supposed to be used. It should list the words for parts of speech in that language. So Category:io:Parts of speech will have the Ido words for "noun", "verb", "adjective", etc. It should be a subcategory of Category:io:Grammar. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Will, I reverted your changes to kenning, as I thought our practice was to italicise all words which are being cross-referenced out of grammatical structure. Eg if we were saying "compare quickly", it seems like a command, whereas "compare quickly" is more obviously a reference to another word. Does that make sense? Widsith 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes that does make sense, I think we need to update Wiktionary:Etymology to show this too. So we will format like show in kenning from now on?--Williamsayers79 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well yes, I'm fairly sure we had a vote on this not long ago, but I can't seem to find it (as usual). Updating Wiktionary:Etymology is a very good idea, it's probably a touch out of date. Widsith 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this something you would like to do or shall I have a bash at updating it?--Williamsayers79 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind, I won't be able to sit down and get on with it till the weekend though, so if you want to crack on before that then be my guest. Widsith 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you separated terms derived from "apple" and phrases derived from "apple". I don't know what benefit this gives to the user, who now has to look in two places. — Paul G 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If its not condusive to others then I'm not bothered about it being reverted.--Williamsayers79 20:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Wiktionary:Entry layout explained says we have quotations, sometimes in a section of that name. No mention of separate citation subpages. What is the rationale for the change? SemperBlotto 12:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Semper, I guess that it makes the pages slightly neater having the cites on a seperate page. To me some of the bigger (and even smaller) pages look ugly with quotes etc. doted about the place. Do you think we need clearer guidelines on when we use a seperate page (if at all)? Sounds like aother vote brewing?--Williamsayers79 12:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes - let's have another vote - it only took me three attempts to launch the latest one (though I was interrupted by real life). SemperBlotto 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please make one of the options a separate namespace. I would see this encompassing dictionary notes and references in addition to citations, especially when the term is not fully attested. DAVilla 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

...to Wiktionary:Votes/2007-03/BD2412bot. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was sort of wondering how we'd keep the Ancient Greek derivations cat. from being a complete mess, what with at least a dozen languages heavily borrowing from it. Thanks for solving that, I'll start using the language specifiers within the {{AGr.}} template. I'm assuming that Enlgish derivations need no special tag, correct? Also, do you have any idea why Category:Male given names from Ancient Greek is coming up as a subcategory of Category:el:Etymology? Doesn't seem like it should. Thanks again. Atelaes 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, Hamaryns (talk • contribs) first started to update some of the Etymology language templates (see category:Etymology templates & Wiktionary:Etymology for more). The aim was to use them in foreign language etymologies and to have specific categories e.g. category:sco:Old English derivations (i.e. Scots words from Old English) for foreign languages. For English no langauge code is needed. If for some reason the template has not been updated yet you will need to make the necessary changes {{AGr.}} is up to date though.--Williamsayers79 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just checked and Category:Male given names from Ancient Greek is not coming up as a subcategory of Category:el:Etymology for me??????--Williamsayers79 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should have been more clear on what I'm seeing. If you go to Category:el:Etymology and then click on the + to expand and see the subcategories, I see Category:Male given names from Ancient Greek, along with La, Fr, and El. But, if you look at Category:Male given names from Ancient Greek, everything seems to be fine, and it's definitely not tagged as part of the Category:el:Etymology. Atelaes 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a geeric error with categories, have a look at a few and you'll see what I mean.--Williamsayers79 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Come to think of it, I have noticed similar issues in other cats. I think I'll post this to the Grease Pit and see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. Atelaes 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Changing the category of slightest from superlative to comparative was a dumb mistake, not a mistake of formatting I do not understand. Thanks. Tim Q. Wells 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A while back I edited the templates {{comparative of}} and {{superlative of}} to take two parameters to aid in autocategorising the articles in which they are used. The POS= parameter specifies the part of speech of the non-inflected word, for example adjective or adverb. The lang= parameter specifies the language of the word. When I first started contributing here I did not use many templates but they do save a lot of work.--Williamsayers79 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Umm... you might want to discuss before removing those dialect tags. We do mark regional dialects. --EncycloPetey 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that we need to state that the plurals are Geordie or inflected verbs forms are, I've marked the main articles (infinitives, singulars) as such - I would have thought that to be sufficient. I'm all for marking dialects myself, I added most of teh Geordie entries and category:Geordie is a bit cluttered with the inflected words. However I will mark some inflected forms as Geordie where only that particular word is specific to the dialect. Does this sound OK?--Williamsayers79 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

But how can you be sure which ones you're de-tagging won't later be tagged as belonging to some other dialect? I'll admit the situation is sticky when you're looking at inflected forms because it does add clutter, but I still think this issue is worth raising in the Beer Parlour. There may very well be other people struggling with the same issue (even for dialects in another language), and they might be able to offer a good solution. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thread raised on WT:BP.--Williamsayers79 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI: you can reverse a redirect by doing the opposite page move. Very simple ;-) Robert Ullmann 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Doh! - oh well thats useful to know, sometimes you just feellike kicking yourself!--Williamsayers79 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this will work. The subsequent tag will be including insofar as categories etc. For now just use "except ..." all together, e.g. {{context|UK|_|except Northern Ireland}}. DAVilla 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK then.--Williamsayers79 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips on Template:ergative. To return the favor, a good tip when you change templates is to look at some things which use them to see whether your change broke the template. In the present case, you rolled Template:ergative back to a broken version created by H. In that version, entries with the template with no lang explicitly specified were miscategorized as Category:ergative verbs (the correct category is, eg, Category:English ergative verbs).

You'll note cattag and context are identical: the former hard redirects to the latter. I just learned this thanks to your kind note, so thanks :) Neither is really appropriate for ergative, since it is not a _context_ tag at all, but a _grammar_ tag like "transitive"/"intransitive". Actually, "(in)transitive" also use context/tag, which is probably why I originally made Template:ergative use it, since I was basically ripping off "(in)transitive". In Template_talk:context/tag you read that context/tag is really not meant for grammar remarks at all. People probably just use it for that since it conventiently includes "(mytagname)", which is used for both grammar and context remarks. But for the sake of people using the tags to design 3rd party software that uses Wiktionary, it would really be a good project to redo things like Template:ergative, Template:transitive, Template:uncountable, etc., to not use context/tag....... or, at minimum, edit Template_talk:context/tag to include grammatical tags.

Thanks and keep up the great work :-D Language Lover 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

We do need something smarter to handle the grammar templates, the ones used for pronouns are a bit lame never mind {{transitive}} and buddies.--Williamsayers79 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you give me technical help with this article? I'm a complete idiot with computers. I'd like to split this article (that I've written) into two parts,as explained on the discussion page of wikipedia:Hawaiian name. Could you please

1.change the okina template so that all those red letters turn into these nice dots as in the Wikipedia version.(Gilgamesh claims that he's done it but I don't see the difference)

2.change the name of the Wiktionary article into Appendix:Hawaiian given names.

Don't try to teach me how to do it - I'd just mess up everything. I'm targeting you because you say that you clean up Transwiki articles. Yours with eternal gratitude--Makaokalani 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just a quick note. Gothic has its own script, and so waúrts should not have been linked, as it's just a Romanization. There are a number of Gothic and Sanskrit cognates in the Ancient Greek entries which don't have their proper scripts yet (we don't have a lot of folks with Gothic and Sanskrit expertise right now), so I just thought I'd give you a heads up. The PIE etymology template (which I see has newly added foreign language capability) looks beautiful. Atelaes 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, I'll not wikilink anymore gothic stuff then.--Williamsayers79 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The word's meaning is not related to Lovecraftian horror, it is only that the concept may be found in Lovecraftian horror, in that his stories have an important fictional grimoire. Using the category there is backwards. This isn't the same as putting shoggoth in Category:Lovecraftian horror, since that relates to "shoggoth"'s meaning; you might as well categorize metaphor and suspense as "Lovecraftian horror" also, since they similarly play a major role, presumably (or magic in Category:Tolkien's Middle-earth; president in Category:US, etc.). It doesn't make sene to me that that is how categorization in a dictionary works. Dmcdevit·t 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean, I'll remove the category and add them to the Concordance instead.--Williamsayers79 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

...although I don't expect to be touching that page again any time soon :-) Thanks for the heads up though. ArielGlenn 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

However, it was quite good to finally get the switch from Greek to Ancient Greek. As someone who does a lot of work with etymologies on Wiktionary, it would be nice if you could help us in our efforts to clarify the distinction between Greek and Ancient Greek within the context of etymologies. If you're interested in some discussion on the topic that us Greek folks have been having (I imagine you may well have some input as well) please take a look at User talk:Saltmarsh#Too many etymology templates and User talk:ArielGlenn#Etymologies. Atelaes 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, moving {{Gk.}} to either {{AGr.}} and {{Gr.}} as appropriate sounds a good idea to me. I tidied up the List of Etymology language templates a while back since it was a total mess. We will need to depreciate the {{Gk.}} template and remove from that list when we are finished. I don't know much about Greek so will leave the migration of articles to the newer templates to yourselves.--Williamsayers79 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you the same William Sayers who wrote for ANQ? I read an etymological article, Spring 2005 v18 i2 p15(4), by William Sayers of Cornell University on Gale's Literature Resource Center.--Νικα 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not me! - I have a bioscience background, this is more a hobby here!--Williamsayers79 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I just wanted to check with you that the material you removed from the article tac was intended? You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary, and this might lead to the edit being construed as an error.--Williamsayers79 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes; I moved the OHG section to tag, after correcting the various links to it from the pages for the days of the German week. User:Drago had some very, ah, interesting ideas when it came to Old High German. I do apologise for not giving an explanatory edit summary (and I know you're not challenging the removal), but my OHG books say 'tag', not 'tac'. — Beobach972 04:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is fair enough! Regards --Williamsayers79 12:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking, though; especially in light of the peculiar problems we've been having with sections disappearing from the Beer Parlour and all. — Beobach972 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering if you could delete these four templates that I moved, to keep down the clutter and stuff.

• {{ro-adj-3-1}}
• {{ro-adj-3-2}}
• {{ro-adj-2-1}}
• {{ro-adj-2-2}}

Ric | opiaterein 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Williamsayers79 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't embolden words in scripts other than Latin (eg, Greek or Arabic words) in etymologies (as in sugar). This makes them difficult to read. Our usual format is to italicise foreign words in Latin scripts and to leave words in other scripts in roman text, with no formatting. Thanks. — Paul G 06:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, we do need to get the format of etymologies pinned down into policy sooner rather than later in my opinion, votes sound like the best way to achieve a good consensus. Regards, --Williamsayers79 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Dijan 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you past work on SE Wikt. I've set a goal of having 2,000 entries by the end of the month. I hope you'll be inspired to come and help us achieve it.--BrettR 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've been busy tidying up the interjections category. My vote still stands.--Williamsayers79 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear. Are you happy with my revisions? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes the vote makes a lot more sense now.--Williamsayers79 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at ] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you reverted a note to the effect that plurals of virus were unattested in Latin -- . I was under the impression that these forms were, in fact, unattested (see for example w:Plural of virus). Could you provide some citations with attestation for these? Or was the revert simply due to the bad formatting? Cynewulf 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was due to bad formatting, maybe I was slightly trigger happy. I have reinstated the comment under the standard Usage notes header, as this would be where most people are likely to look for this type of info. I'm unaware of any evidence that they are attested so I inserted the word currently before unattested.--Williamsayers79 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did some good work on mess recently, however, there are few things you should note in order to improve it further:

• Make sure that if there is an “Etymology 2” section, that the first etymology section be called “Etymology 1”, and not just “Etymology”;
• Be careful that the {{seecites}} link is given under the correct sense(s) (at present, the one for mess has one citation for a sense given under the “Etymology 2” section, but when you split the senses, it was left under the “Etymology 1” section);
• I suggest omitting the infinitive marker (“to”) from verbal definitions — our entries are for the unmarked verbs, not their infinitive forms;
• It is best not to use “confer” to mean the full form of cf., as it is liable to be confused with the homographic English word of a different meaning — see that I have substituted “compare” in the entry;
• Chiefly for æsthetics’ sake, capitalise the initial letter of translation glosses (as is done to the initial letter of definitions); and,
• Balance translations firstly according to number, and only secondly according to alphabet — it is rare for translations to split equally at M/N, so splitting them at that division tends to leave a block of unsightly yellow space at the bottom of one of the columns.

Just a few tips. Feel free to make similar suggestions for me. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments though I would like to comment myself that:

• The consensus is not to capitalise the start of the translation gloss,
• It best to leave the to in the verb definition as this has been the case here for a while,

--Williamsayers79 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For what it’s worth, whilst it’s true that more often than not I see translation glosses which are minuscule-initial (expect for the cases of proper nouns), verbal definitions I’ve seen tend not to use infinitive markers. Whatever the situation, it doesn’t seem to be very clearly decided. Do you know why or where these decisions were made? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are just what I notice to be the consensus, that is true of a lot of the "standard" around here that I've noticed in my spell here since June 2006. Maybe we need more votes around here? --Williamsayers79 07:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think so. Otherwise we’d be basing everything upon argumenta ad antiquitatem… † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no language code for ba that I am aware of. The ISO code for Bosnian is bs. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bugger!, I made a slight error there! Thanks for fixing it for me. :-) --Williamsayers79 07:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you designing this to be an inflection line template for English pronouns? If so, let me know when it's nearing completion. I had intended to do a major overhaul of English pronouns this summer, for which I collected copious notes. However, I doubt now that I will have the time to do so myself, given the activity that has begun happening with Latin this summer. I do still intend to start an Appendix:English pronouns before too much longer, I hope. --EncycloPetey 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm trying to make it as easy as possible in the flavour of {{infl}}, its nearly done!--Williamsayers79 08:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The template has now been revamped, documentation is on the talk page of {{en-pron}} --Williamsayers79 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Two things I'll mention before I sign off for tonight. (1) The CGEL (and a few folks here) believe in the concept of Determiner as a part of speech. This "new" POS includes demonstratives. Since determiners can function as modifiers or pronouns, you can see how they fit in there nicely. So, we might want to consider a wholesale shift and leave the demonstratives out of the Pronoun category (though Category:English determiners could be listed under Category:English pronouns for convenience). (2) The word "his" is not a noun :) I recommend just calling it a "possessive" form, rather than "possessive adjective or noun". The duality of the part of speech will be covered on the entry for his, as well as in the aforementioned Appendix. It is a general feature of all possessive forms of pronouns that they may function as adjectives, because of their origin as a genitive case form. --EncycloPetey 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for the pointers. Do we need a determiners inflection template?--Williamsayers79 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. There are too many individual variants for a general template. Determiners include demonstratives, articles, and numerals (cardinal, ordinal, and indefinite) mainly. It's more likely that each one will have its own template or won't really need one at all. However, it mght be nice to have one for Numeral -- one that could tie together the cardinal and ordinal lemma forms in the inflection line. That's something that would be useful across many languages. It might be better though as a right-side box, so that it could also link the previous and next numerals, as well as the symbol form. --EncycloPetey 10:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that doesn't belong in Category:Numerals by language. The "Numerals by language" is for the words used for numerals in various languages. The individual symbol sets should be listed under Category:Numbers. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, now fixed.--Williamsayers79 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Templates and coding are not among my strong suits. However, I know that DAVilla was working on templates that had to call and identify languages in much the same way. You might look at DAVilla's edits to the {{context}} and related termplates, or ask DAVilla directly. --EncycloPetey 08:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The {language} template is an atrocity. We need to get it out of {context}, not use it more. It is insane that we can't use the language code templates. Robert Ullmann 06:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you reply Robert, I'm a little confused too why we can't work out some way to use the plain language templates. The discussion on WT:BP is going to be moved to to WT:GP so your input would be very much appreciated.--Williamsayers79 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is the present state of affairs (creating lang:xx IFF xx is linked) working okay for you for now? Robert Ullmann 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is working for {{infl}} so I will continue for now and create the template:lang:xxx as I go along. --Williamsayers79 10:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given your contribution history, you may wish to join the debate in the Wiktionary:Beer Parlour#CFI over the inclusion of languages for which there is no ISO code. I'm in favor of including extinct languages with no ISO code; Connel is against anything without an ISO code. --EncycloPetey 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note that we already have {{oe-noun}}. Widsith 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did see that one, but thought we could do with a one for the inflection line immediately below the POS header. The template I have just made is fairly basic and I've noticed that many entries for Old English use the {{Latinx}} and {{unicode}} in the inflection lines which may complicate matters when try to use the inflection templates. Do we need to move the entries to their respective unicode entries? or should I midify the template to allow the use of the spellings alternative to the PAGENAME etc.?--Williamsayers79 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, sorry for late reply, I've been away for a few days. Yeah, I can see the need for having a template for the inflection line too, but the problem, as you say, is with the wikilinking. Because some words use diacritical marks in the inflection line the template would have to be quite sophisticated, which is why I've avoided creating one before. {{oe-noun}} does not wikilink for that very reason (it's based on {{ru-noun}}, which has the same problem). At any rate, both templates, if 2 are needed, should have the same code. Personally I prefer oe to ang. Maybe oe-noun should be renamed oe-declension or oe-decl or something? Widsith 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You know the particle "like" that's added to the end of sentences in Geordie? (e.g. "That wasn't bad, like!") It's rather common where I'm from as well, and so I wanted to write a definition for it... but I really can't think of one. I can't even think what it implies, although I use it practically all the time! Do you have any idea what I could put? RandomTeri 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I may but in here, but I'm not certain it has a meaning as such. It doesn't add anything to the meaning of the words/sentence it follows. "That wasn't bad" means exactly the same as "That wasn't bad, like!", similarly "Y'know what I mean?" and "Y'know what I mean, like?" are identical. I guess the beast way to describe it is as am end of sentence or end of speech tag or marker. Its been a while since I was in Newcastle, and it isn't used in the Westcountry dialect, but I don't recall it being used to end consecutive sentences by the same speaker, e.g. "That was brilliant, like. I really enjoyed that game, like. Who'd ever have thought we'd win the FA Cup, like?" - there would except in parody of the dialect, there would only be a single "like", occurring at the end of the final sentence; excepting of course any instances of the word "like" being used in another function, e.g. "I really like being able to walk into a pub and not having to show ID when I order a pint, like". (should this conversation be migrated to the Tea room?) Thryduulf 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe that its is an interjection used as an intensifier. Thats how I've come to understand it like! :-) I'll put an entry in the article like.--Williamsayers79 10:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to both of you! I think I'll use that definition for the Scots section as well (with a different example, of course). RandomTeri 13:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks a lot for the advice and cleaning up my pages. I'm really new here, there's quite a lot to learn. I really appreciate the help. Jakeybean 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not that easy at first, but I picked it up pretty quickly! Sometimes contributing words on occult and other fortean topics can be a bit tricky due to the idiosyncratic nature of the the corresponding litrature. Keep up the good work.--Williamsayers79 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of something like that, but not sg= (that would seem to apply only to nouns? Although in some languages other POS). I was thinking of hw or hr (headword repeater). head=? We also should add tr= and teach it to put a transliteration in a standard place. Robert Ullmann 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea, I'll change the sg= to head= . The transliteration bit sounds like agood idea too. --Williamsayers79 11:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes; I added head= for the script case too (they ought to work together), and added tr=; still need to doc. Robert Ullmann 12:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I responded on my talk page. ᏁᏍᎧᏯֶ _talk 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, I responded (about ensaumples) on my talk page.  :) --Neskaya ^talk 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind not changing {{top}} to {{trans-top}} without also providing a gloss, as per your edit to General American? That had only one definition. Of course, if there are several definitions, it sould be split into tables, which you don't have to bother with every time you see it. But please try to avoid growing Category:Translation table header lacks gloss.

(Also, FYI there has been a push away from using {{wikipedia}} in favor of inline links. Although it isn't policy yet, moving the box around may be inconsequential.) DAVilla 05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

By in-line do you mean {{pedialite}}? I'm in favour of that myself. I'll take your other points into consideration too. Regards. --Williamsayers79 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yup. Great, thanks! DAVilla 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder (per York). Thanks! DAVilla 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look at User talk:Widsith#Scots again if it isn't too much trouble? --Neskaya ^talk 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, I responded to ye on ma collogue. --Neskaya ^talk 01:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I add Turkish words and declensions, but i have a problem. I use the template

for declensions but it doesn't sometimes work. For example, accusative of the kurbağa is "kurbağanın" and i only write to the template "nın". But accusative form of the köpek is "köpeğin". k becomes ğ. How can i show that?? Best wishes, Sinek 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The template {{crh-latin-noun}} that you specify is for Crimean Tartar which I understand to be different from Turkish. This may be the issue. If you are going to add Turkish declensions maybe you would like to create a new set of declension templates for Turkish the e.g. {{tr-noun-decl}} etc.--Williamsayers79 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer, but i'm sure i can't do it:D i'll write it but not in a template:D Have a nice day, Sinek 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just added a chemical definition to inertness and discovered that we do not have an entry for unreactive / un-reactive. But I'm not sure which is correct. Would you like to do the honours? Thx. -- Algrif 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC) It's possible that this would be better sent to s/o else. It's just that I've seen a number of edits on chemistry related topics in your name. Algrif 10:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think SemperBlotto beat me to it! - he is/used to be a chemical engineer - I think so knows his chemistry very well. I have a paltry A-Level in it and some scraps that I needed to do my biomedical degree at Uni! --Williamsayers79 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi; the idea is to use {{a|RP}} and {{a|GenAm}} etc.; these standardize the links with {{accent:RP}} etc. (A accent name without a template is just italicized.) We do have a huge problem with the fact that RP != UK; lots of people have been using RP correctly, and some not, and UK to mean "Commonwealth", and who knows what else. Robert Ullmann 10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aha! okay, thanks for letting me know, I'll correct any I see.--Williamsayers79 10:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Billy. Per the conversation at Template talk:term#Language sections, the {{{L}}} parameter of {{term}} has been deprecated, so I updated your uses of it to ISO calls, e.g., by converting {{term|...|L=Latin|...}} to {{term|...|lang=la|...}}. Let me know if you have any questions. Rod (A. Smith) 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh! (Sorry if this becomes an edit conflict.) FYI, the ISO 639-3 code for Middle English is "enm". Rod (A. Smith) 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's all fine by me. I worked out why the lang= bit was not working for some of them after using L=, you have to have template:lang:xxx for it to work - so I have been creating them as I go along.--Williamsayers79 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lang:xx templates are only needed or used IF the xx template has the language name wikilinked; otherwise it is just something we have to clean up. We want to get to where all the xx templates are not linked, and all the lang:xx templates can go away. Robert Ullmann 13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm certainly in favour of that! How long do you think we will have have to wiat before we can delink all of the xx templates? It is a pain in the arse having duplication :-( --Williamsayers79 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you removed African American Vernacular references in these articles, are we not recording this type of info anymore?--Williamsayers79 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Links: honky, honkey, honkie, hunky, hunkey, hunkie, hunky-dory, hunky dory, honky-tonk, honky tonk, talk:honky, talk:honkey, talk:honkie, talk:hunky, talk:hunkey, talk:hunkie, talk:hunky-dory, talk:hunky dory, talk:honky-tonk, talk:honky tonk,

When it actually is limited to AAVE, we tag it as AAVE. Those aren't limited to AAVE (nor even specific to AAVE, nor even originated from AAVE.) As very mild slurs, honky/honkey are very common, but in no way restricted to AAVE.

That series of entries sees periodic racist vandalism. Tagging something "ebonics" is almost always wrong. But AAVE is only correct when it is correct. "Hunky" is the word used in the phrase "hunky-dory" meaning A-OK. "Honky" is the (even milder) synonym of "whitey." "Honkey" is an alternate spelling of "honky" (or perhaps even a misspelling.) But none of those are specific to, or limited to AAVE.

You are correct that I should probably have explained why I removed that (vandalism?) from hunky on its talk page. But that series of entries has enough noise, that I didn't think to do so. Tagging hunky (from "hunky-dory") as "ebonics" is just wrong, and looked like vandalism at first glance.

Now, in some dialects, it is conceivable that "hunky"/"hunkey" is an alternate spelling of "honky." Conceivable, but not likely. So, if there is a dialect where that is true, it should be indicated. But the tag "ebonics" should be avoided at all times, in deference to "AAVE." The etymonline reference contradicts (antedates) itself, and surely is just wrong. Confer http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hunky and oddly, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bohunk (which is the apparent source of the "Hungarian" thing, from slang used from the 1890s up until 1905?) (but note it is for a completely different word.)

Having checked closer now, it seems we are missing the secondary sense "very muscular" for hunk / hunky / hunkey / hunkie. The primary sense is (obviously?) "A-OK," from hunky-dory. If a reliable source for it being an alteration or misspelling of "honky" can be found, then that should be listed as a separate slang sense. But even then, tagging it AAVE would be questionable.

I agree that the whole series is a mess right now. Here are some other references I checked:

 !

I am interested to hear, how you think this series should be cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info, I tried to tidy them up a bit the last time (few months back) but found it hard having little or no understanding of dialects within the US English. The above seems to pretty much sum it up for these entries. I'll keep away from the ebonics label - its probably quite offensive I would have thought! Do we need to RFD it? AAVE seems a more impartial term without the derogatory overtones that ebonics implies. Regards --Williamsayers79 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you persist in changing templates I have created and apparently nobody else uses (I suspect in many cases nobody else will), and apparently even intend to delete redirects to your long versions, you thus render them far less practical, so the only result can be they'll be less used, as I would have to waste too much time trying to guess what damned code replaced my mnemonics, while puzzling content together, often from different sources, can be complex enough; therefore I will probably end up sourcing much less or even abandon the etymological sections altogether. Obviously this doesn't apply to major sources such as Etymology On line, which hopefully have many Wiki-users.

And what's the purpose? Template names aren't meant ever to be read by a single end-user, just us contributors, so no formality makes any sense here. Surely we all have better thing to do. This kind of formalistic nonsense takes a lot of the fun out of contributing actual content, and thus is one of the reasons there is so little substance (especially in Wiktionary, when I look up something I actually want to know it's usually totally absent or hopelessly inadequate) and so little progress.

Happy content contributing, anyway. Fastifex 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't have anything against shorter template names, I'd prefer R: prefix for reference templates as they are less likely to conflict with naming of other templates. The categorisation is to enable us to find the templates so that we can all use them.

I don't want to discourage anyone from contributing but we need to have some structure.--Williamsayers79 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm scratching my head about this edit. Why wouldn't the context tag be helpful there? More to the point, what benefit is gained from removing it? --Connel MacKenzie 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's mainly because Category:Geordie was becoming difficult to navigate with all the verb forms and plurals. The article plodges takes you back to the main entry (infinitive) plodge with the regional label and references. Because the word will have almost no use outside of the Northeast of the UK I did not see much point in labelling it itself - I'd only label the verb forms if they were Standard English words but had a specific regional use. --Williamsayers79 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then I am still left confused. The edict from years past, was that redirects can always be replaced with form-of entries and form-of entries can always be expanded to include more. With the only exception being the Translations section, more (examples, synonyms, etymologies, quotations, etc.) are supposed to always be welcome, on form-of entries. Pushing them to a sub-category would seem OK (but we haven't crossed that bridge yet.) In that vein, it might even make sense to use {{i|Geordie}} on plodges so readers (like me) don't look at it, thinking "what on Earth? English?"  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough I'll label with {{i|Geordie}} for verb forms until I workout away of sub-categorising them.--Williamsayers79 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know that I have been categorising loads of the plain language templates not in Category:Language templates, I hope to be finished this soon so your XML dump and bot creation of the languages list should include a few more next time.--Williamsayers79 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good, I note you are probably working from the special uncat templates list? I need to keep deleting the bad redirects, should do some more, we'll see where we are in a couple of days. Robert Ullmann 22:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's all of them on that list now categorised. BTW, do you know how often special uncat templates is updated?--Williamsayers79 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The cached specials lists are about twice a week. We should have new XML in a few days, and I'll run that again. Robert Ullmann 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I note that you have managed to cat all of the templates identified in my list (except sa, ta, I got those just now). Good show. Robert Ullmann 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI: new list of templates/cats: User:Robert Ullmann/Language templates Robert Ullmann 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this deserves an entry? My gtⁿgrandfather was born in Monkwearmouth and baptised in Bishopwearmouth. SemperBlotto 15:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I assume this is on the River Wear, so I may be biassed, but I say that place names should be in the Wiktionary no matter what other contributors think, I believe this place deserves a mention.--Williamsayers79 16:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Billy!

Since apparently nobody noticed my request here, could you please delete those empty categories and template {{OSL.}}? Thanks! --Ivan Štambuk 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi William, you are cordially invited to discuss the Transwiki merge conversation that I started at Help_talk:Transwiki to bring a consensus on the procedure. Goldenrowley 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful editing Latin entries. When you made this edit, you changed the gender of a Latin noun and introduced a serious error. The Latin noun gravitās is feminine, as it was originally labelled, not masculine, as you changed it. The secondary form was the genitive singular, not the feminine. --EncycloPetey 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, worries - I'll take more care with them. Thanks for the poke! --Williamsayers79 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This isn't needed; the "lang:" templates exist if and only if the code template is wikilinked (because templates can't unlink something). The lang: templates are only used via {{language}}. (Someday, we will make this mess go away, in the meantime it is encapsulated by {language}) Robert Ullmann 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for letting me know, that will save me some some. Cheers! --Williamsayers79 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do simple organics like ethane occur in multiple forms in a way that matters to a chemist, a chemical engineer, a purchasing agent, or a tomato? isomers? contaminants? storage/shipment characteristics? DCDuring TALK 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The compound ethane would be uncountable in the sense of C₂H₆. If there was a common or accepted use of a countable definition of say derived compounds or packaging then we would need to get cites and then have seperate definition line for it. Hope this helps! --Williamsayers79 13:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why on earth would you make a wholesale revert of a variety of improvements? If you have a specific issue, then edit that -- wholesale reversion demonstrates how much thought you put into analyzing my actual edits before pressing that button. Be better. -- Thisis0 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I was a little hasty there, please accept my apologies. --Williamsayers79 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the help. Kevlar67 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. You do not necessarily think that Kitty53 is a disruptive newbie with a subersive agenda, but you think it's okay for Connel to have blocked her because he also does block the ones that are. Is that more or less correct? DAVilla 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I did not mean anyone in particular, I wash probably ranting a bit!--Williamsayers79 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

He should be less quick to block though.--Williamsayers79 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, not ranting. I just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly. Thanks. DAVilla 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Guess I still have to get used a bit more to using the categories... Circeus 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its a bit confusing at times, your edit did make the entry easier to read as before there was more context label than text! It's an easy mistake to make when removing a context label not to check that category links need to be added back. Anyway no harm done ;-) --Williamsayers79 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey WS79, could you enlighten me as to the Northern English meaning of kittle? --Keene 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have never used the term myself but it appears to be a verb and an adjective for to tickle and ticklish respectively. I have created the article and made reference to some reliable sources. --Williamsayers79 08:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use this (I've removed it). Gender/number like stuff can use g= (like g={{m|inv}} to get (removed). Other things belong inside the parenthesis. Robert Ullmann 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, it was only an idea but it was a bit naff. Regards --Williamsayers79 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We've got them all. Note that the case above is better as g=m|g2=inv in line with many language specific templates that take g2 and g3 to provide additional gender/number indications. Robert Ullmann 13:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, this is much neater now! --Williamsayers79 13:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind my asking on your talk page, but I notice that you are an expert in Geordie and that you are entering words from other dialects. Does Wiktionary accept all dialect words? I have a few from by mother and grandfather (NW rather than NE) which probably date back to Viking (Norse) roots, but do not appear in other dictionaries (and I would find it difficult to cite usage, other than locals who would say "yes, that's what it means"). Do these words belong in Wiktionary, or is there a better place to record them? Dbfirs 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Generally it is very hard to find cites, however, most notable dialects have had their fans in the past who have created literature in it or simply created word lists. This is how most dialect words are verified from my experience. It may take some rummaging around but you should be able to find something on the internet somewhere. Local libraries may also be a good starting point. I have also found academics at universities keep a large volume of material on dialect e.g. Bill Griffins (the author of A Dictionary of North East Dialect).

Dialect does belong on Wiktionary as we aim to describe all words in all languages, but we must state clearly that they are dialect and go to lengths otherwise not required to try and verify them e.g. references and cites.

Hope this helps. --Williamsayers79 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've added only "kytle" so far but I will try to find citations for some other local dialect words when I have a chance to visit the nearest library (17 miles away). Dbfirs 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Robert, I added auto-categorisation to {{proto}} a while back to categorise articles under Category:xxx:Proto-Language derivations. This is all well and fine but there are many times when categorisation is not desired. Could we add a parameter such as notcat=1 to remove the categorisation? This would be handy when using {{proto}} is stating cognates etc.--Williamsayers79 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the documentation page for {{proto}} - use lang= (i.e. empty lang parameter). --Ivan Štambuk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent this solvews it! Cheers --Williamsayers79 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your warm welcome. As for the revert, that will be fine. I saw both an English and a Scots entry, and since Scottish English is a synonym for Scots to most people (and correctly so), it looked like the word was being given provenance in English English (where it is not used). As I presume you know, it is (literally) the word for "saxons" among Insular Celtic peoples. Regards, Notuncurious 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you've been expanding the use of {{topic cat}} and I was wondering if you've run into any problems beyond the outstanding issues I've already mentioned at User:Mike Dillon/Topics. Mike Dillon 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's been working quite nicely, I like the ability to have specific descriptions set. The only thing I'd like to do is to be able add the main language category (e.g. Category:German language to categories such as Category:de:Etymology and Category:de:Slang - that would be excellent - we could then do away with a lot other nav type templates.--Williamsayers79 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is possible right now. All you need to do is put something like ] into Template:topic cat parents/Etymology and Template:topic cat parents/Slang, probably in addition to the "standard" call to {{topic cat parents/helper}} to get parents that are part of the prefixed topic tree (e.g. Category:Lexicons). Mike Dillon 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, I will try and have a go at this soonish. Regards, --Williamsayers79 20:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I ask the motivation on reverting Conrad? Ultimately, I really don't understand how the whole things works, so I'm just an observer on this whole show, but he claims that there are a number of advantages to his changes, and I've learned to trust him. You should at least let him know that you reverted him and why. If this is the result of a discussion that I'm not seeing, then feel free to ignore me, and I apologize for wasting your time. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was trying something out, I noticed since his last changes that the style of text formatted with the aforementioned template had changed somewhat. However my wife decided to pull me off the old PC before finishing my test! I'm back now, 3 Singha beers later! I'll revert my changes and see if there is a change.--Williamsayers79 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does appear that the purposeful differences in the style of text formatted with template {{polytonic}} and {{Grek}} have changed since Conrad made his changes. I've reverted my changes now - this was only supposed to be a quick change BTW. I'll give him a quick message on his talk page.--Williamsayers79 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What did you have in mind when you created these - English given names used in Ireland or Scotland? ( Leslie is actually used in France, for example). They seem pointless since other subcategories of given names are by origin. And they are a bad example because people keep creating categories starting with "Xxxn given names" instead of "xx:Given names".

Do you think you could delete these three (leave the 3 existing pages in the main category), like you deleted Category:English given names? I've been adding your topic cat-templates to given name categories and they work fine.--Makaokalani 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

They were originally for names used in those countries, but the categories do cause confusion. I'm happy for you to get rid of these categories.--Williamsayers79 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you also press the "delete" button, please? I don't have it. Category:Irish names and Category:Scottish names seem needless, too, because only the surname subcategories remain. But see the discussion in Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Armenian names. Do you understand what I'm trying to say there? The given name entries and categories are an absolute mess.I started to clean up and I was so happy about the topic cat-templates.--Makaokalani 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Makaokalani: people keep creating "Xxxx given names" because that is correct, and "xx:Given names" is wrong. Robert Ullmann 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Williamsayers79

It's very nice to hear from you. I had seen this, WT:ELE#Variations_for_languages_other_than_English, but honestly, those 5 lines struck me as a tad vague. And the linked WT:LC wasn't all that helpful to me, either.

The WT:ELE can be vague, but will improve in time as we gain more experience as a group and decide to update it through the voting system here.--Williamsayers79 11:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

But I can certainly follow your example if I make any future entries of the same type. Thanks for that, and for your interest--which I will construe as volunteering to answer my questions about other entry types, if I decide to tackle any more types. OK? Snakesteuben 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am more than happy to answer any queries that you may have or point you in the right direction. That is how we get on best here!--Williamsayers79 11:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much. OK, I see what you did here. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=dogge&diff=next&oldid=4068796

So, there are two edits. We replace the ] with {{infl|fy|verb}}. That's one. The other was just to remove the noun's gender from my use of the {{infl|fy|noun}}. I don't understand that one? Does the English site prefer to omit genders because English doesn't have them maybe? Thanks. Snakesteuben 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The template {{infl}} is used to format the what we call here the inflection line, the template is used for languages which do not have their own templates yet. As for the gender, the template {{g}} is used to request the gender, you tried to include it with the {{infl}} inclusion but it won't work that way unfortunately - I removed it as I assumed that someone will populate the actual gender at some point. You might want to have a read of Template talk:infl, if you have any queries around its use you can ask myself or Robert Ullmann. --Williamsayers79 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

20080407 (Inserted lines for my readability)

Thanks. I have read that document long ago. And I'm familiar with the terms you're using.

I tried to request the gender? <blink> Such a thing would never have occurred to me. (But thanks for telling me how to do it.)

Sorry William, I guess I'm not being clear at all. As I said, I entered the gender. That means I specified the gender as "g." Or tried to... I looked at the examples and I thought the next parameter of infl-fy after noun would be the gender. I guess I'm wrong.

To give the gender the parameter is g=? where ? is the gender e.g. m, f, n, c etc.--Williamsayers79 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since the third parameter after noun can't be gender, please give me the full argument syntax--what the parameters of the template would be--after 1) fy and 2) noun. Thanks for offering to help me there, too. Snakesteuben 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The correct syntax would be {{infl|fy|noun|g=g}}, I removed the g as I did not understand it to be an actual gender, usually there are f for feminine, m for masculine, n for neuter, c for common - I have never come across g before, but it is possible that West Frisian has other genders. What does g signify?--Williamsayers79 07:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I try, but I can be a little scatterbrained, so if you leave a message here, and you happen to notice that I haven't answered in a few days, you might drop a reminder on my talk page. <blush> Snakesteuben 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. yet again. Just so's you know... I have been granted a bit of a formatting waiver on the fy stuff. ;-) Category_talk:Frisian_language#Wow. Now, I'm not meaning to say that I don't want to do the right thing, and I will if it can be done with reasonable effort. But, for example, hunting down applicable templates and reformatting things like this has been negotiated out of my 311-part job description. ;-) If, while I'm engaged in this task, you would prefer that I not enter any new information, because, that, too, might not be formatted entirely correctly, I think maybe it would be best to bring that up on the talk page I cited. What do you think?

Also, until you tell me otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and keep entering genders, even though taking it out was one of your two edits on the entry you wrote to me about. They've been present on some of the entries I've already categorised. It might be easier to roll them out than to enter them. (I'm assuming that not everybody else knows what they are and can enter them easily.)

Thanks again. Snakesteuben 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (Winter)Reply

How can I get this: {{infl|fy|adj}} to be useful? I can't figure out how use it now because it assigns all adjectives to a crazy non-existent category "West Frisian adjs" (kind of reminiscent of the Frysk word for written notice) instead of "West Frisian adjectives." But, hey, I tried! ;-) Thanks. Snakesteuben 14:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The correct use would be {{infl|fy|adjective}}. The second parameter is the part of speech e.g. noun, verb, adjective, adverb etc. using an abbreviation will not work.--Williamsayers79 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, gotcha. The template doesn't expand abbreviations, and it doesn't translate grammar terms. As far as I can tell, if the template infl+fy is given only a third parameter xxx, it actually doesn't do anything except take whatever the user sticks in the that third parameter, stick an s on the end, and spit it out as "Category:West Frisian xxxs". It doesn't validate that third parameter in any way. It doesn't add any information to the entry if that parameter is verb... What's the point?

If I'm correct, then ... Is the only function your syntax {{infl|fy|verb}} to alias my syntax--]--directly? Does it add any information to the entry? I can't see that it did--either hidden or visible. Your cleaned up entry and my original entry appear identical on the screen to me. (Except for your second edit where you deleted the gender.) There's no format change at all. No category change.

Furthermore, the substituted syntax you use is extremely cryptic where the function of mine is completely clear. It doesn't seem to help the user who is reading the entry and trying to figure it out, and it doesn't even save many keystrokes.

Given all that, if I'm correct and there is absolutely no difference between the two choices in terms of the entry's:

• format
• content, and
• length

then why is it so all-fired important to you that I use the template syntax? What am I missing?

When I write templates, I intend to make life easier for users. If they find them, hopefully it will save them some work. I have no desire to force users to hunt for them and incorporate them when it doesn't improve the entry's functionality in any way. So, I must be missing something. Thanks again. Snakesteuben 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The template {{infl}} has a lot more parameters than are used usually. I would suggest that if you are an expert in West Frisian for example that you create some new template e.g. {{fy-noun}}, {{fy-verb}}, {{fy-adj}} which take parameters such as gender etc. and also give the inflected forms of the word. The template {{infl}} is meant for use with languages that don't have their own inflection templates. Since West Frisian seems to be of interest to a few folks here then I believe that some language specific templates would be a great benefit.--Williamsayers79 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. I was just about to ask Robert U. if I could snag the Dutch templates and do exactly that! Snakesteuben 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another benefit to using {{infl}} is that the iso code (the second parameter) will always give the correct language name. This makes things a lot easier here as we standardise the category naming for languages. I would urge you to look at Template talk:infl to learn about the other useful parameters.--Williamsayers79 07:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no it doesn't -- not where it counts. ;-)

I am well familiar with the theory.

Unfortunately, it does NOT dynamically control/construct the language name in the actual entry. That's why I'm having to go through and change them all by hand. All it does is change the language name in the CATEGORY. That's nice I suppose, but categories can be renamed and redirected. I would not have to go through this chore if that were the only issue.

I'm also well familiar with the other potentially useful parameters.

Also alas, without customisation, the other parameters are of limited if any utility. Anyway, as an experiment, I subst'd the infl template with the parameters from the example you gave me. As I expected it spat out exactly what I typed when I didn't use the template. So, I see no benefit from the template in terms of format, content or length, and I see a benefit in terms of transparency for NOT using it. (I believe transparency facilitates contributions by users who are weaker in a the language.) While I greatly appreciate your advice and counsel and the time you took, and I enjoyed our discussion (seriously), I don't intend to use the template at least in the case of verbs. Working with customised templates and developing new ones is on my to-do list now, for sure, though. Thanks! (If you or anyone senior to you should feel the need to discuss that issue further, please ping me on my talk page, OK?)

I have been working on some entry templates like this one Template:fy-NPL. Unlike the infl template, that actually CAN change the language name. That's on my to do list as well. Snakesteuben 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the brain power to stack as well as you ;-), so rather than get balled up in a second edit, I'll continue the short one down here.

Good job. ;-)

Gheheh. I'm evil. That was a bit of a trick question. I left it alone rather than volunteer the answer to make a point. (Background: on the fy and nl sites, if a user types c, they will substitute g. Typing n yields u and o respectively. The en site doesn't do the reverse and it should. At least yet--until I fix/write custom templates.)

The punch line/best edit in that case would have been s/g/c/ not s/g//. Anyone actually consulting that entry would have recognised that I used the Frisian rather than the English abbreviation, and likely would have fixed it. Anyone policing the entry, armed with a rudimentary knowledge of the language, definitely would have fixed it.

It can be annoying when people delete useful information that's dodgy, but still easily parsed, because they don't know the fundamentals of the language. Again, excellent job by you, too, there, for pinging me. So, no harm done in this case. Questions and "are you sure" notes are one thing. But I think people should make an effort to learn the semantic tech and not just the syntactic tech before making deletions--at least without notice. I hope your colleagues are also aware of that, as you seem to be.

(I don't think I was too, too mean there. I hope you agree.) ;-) Snakesteuben 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Same deal here as on the parenthetical above. I figure you're done with (and quite tired of!) me, and I don't plan to watch your page any more. ;-) Cheers and kindest regards, Winter/User:Snakesteuben 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am having some second thoughts about the etymology of words ending in "head". I had been treating them as if there were a suffix "-head" meaning "head" (various senses). We have an entry for -head that does not include this sense, which I thought to be in error. But many nouns form words in combination with other words but are not deemed suffixes in dictionaries. Do you have any thoughts on this? DCDuring TALK 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would say that if a noun is often used to form the end part of many compounds terms or derived words then a suffix entry should be warranted. If the word is not used to form compounds often then I would say it would not need a suffix entry - it really is a case of what is common. I'd say that the use of head as a suffix is very common.--Williamsayers79 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think my concern is that -head is like the morpheme -ship as in flagship rather than in penmanship. Almost all of the entries in the English suffix category are more like the "penmanship" morpheme. I think I'm going to have to read up on this a bit and make sure that I can make an objective distinction most of the time. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, Billy. I forgot to say thanks until now. It's nice to have one's work appreciated. Particularly when the feeling's mutual. :-) But it's not like I could say no... How many people are even a little familiar with all three? Must admit I was rather amused that people flagged the issue, but then advertised for help from somebody who "know Frisian." Gheheh. Snake Stubborn 2008-04-13 T 07:20 UTC

Hi, Billy, I hope all's well.

Of the admins on my list, I've pestered you least recently, so I guess you're up. ;-)

Where is a site's global css that makes this statement true kept? (I'm working on another project where this is not the case, and the opposite is the default. No one opposes, but we don't know how to make the change. :-\)

Thanks loads! Winter (User:Snakesteuben 18:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you're after here, one assumption would be that you would like to know how to edit the css page so that you may alter the displayed format of the Wiktionary, more specifically the way templates display. You're css page would be at User:Snakesteuben/monobook.css. Of course any items that you have in your monobook.css require that they have been made an option in the first place. for {{en-noun}} the class for the inflection line is declared in the template so that if you were to specify an alternate format in your monobook.css then this would be displayed rather than the default. Hope this helps --Williamsayers79 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nah, been there, done that. I'm looking for the location of the main.css, and the global skins, the one that affects all users, not just me. (Yes, I know editing it requires sysop privs.) I think it's something like http://xx.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/MediaWiki:main.css But that's not really it, or that's not the only one. Thanks. :-) Winterxx (User:Snakesteuben 09:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

Never mind, Petal. I managed to dig the info out of Ullmann. ;-) Winter (User:Snakesteuben 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

To a couple folks who've been especially helpful/nice to me during my first few weeks at en.wikt: Thanks! :-)

Right. Anonymous greeting cards don't work with edit logs, not to mention Sinebots floating around. (Yeah, OK, I forgot to sign ... again!) Snakesteuben 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Billy, Since you got off the hook last time you're still up. :-)

Q: When, if ever, is a "translations" section appropriate in a foreign language entry?

In other words is there any case where a foreign language word, say "aber" in German or anything else, would have a translation section showing, say "maar" in Dutch, or whatever?

Thanks, -Winter (User:Snakesteuben 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC))Reply

Never mind again. Found my own answer. :-) Snakesteuben 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you look at Category:Sanskrit derivations as there is something wrong with relation to the application of {{topic cat}}. __meco 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed an error in the {{topic cat}} sub page Template:topic cat parents/Sanskrit derivations, it had an incorrect link in it. Does this fix the issue to which you referred? --Williamsayers79 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I changed a few of the derivations categories to use Template:topic cat parents/helper derivations. I'm still not sure that using {{topic cat}} itself for derivations categories is the best way to handle things, but there is no need to copy and paste the boilerplate for every one of them. Mike Dillon 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure the issue has been handled competently. __meco 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just discovered Template:no-noun-c, which you recently changed, and I wonder about the meaning of this template. There is no "common gender" in Norwegian (as opposed to e.g. in Swedish). However, there are some words that are masculine in some dialects and feminine in others. These are typically marked with m/f in dictionaries. Can you explain when to use this template? --90.149.54.139 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This template has an odd title, I've realised my mistake in editing it and have reverted my last change. It should be used for words that have a masculine or feminine gender (like you have mentioned).--Williamsayers79 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Hungarian is an agglutinative language and we use the form of templates often in the etymology. Please do not change this in the future. Thanks for your cooperation. --Panda10 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that the format looks right when we do it that way, but in the interests of good-faith and the fact that we have Wiktionary:About Hungarian I will revert my change. Regards, --Williamsayers79 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If you have doubts about this method, please bring up the subject in BP. --Panda10 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tips. There's so many formatting rules to learn. If you ever see me doing something else wrong please don't hesitate to point it out to me. It really helps. Thanks! Rocket000

I assume that you’d be the one to ask about Geordie slang. Please check to see whether the information I have given in reet canny is accurate, as well as adding a pronunciatory transcription for the accent. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. I expected the pronunciation to be something like: ; shows what I know… (BTW, I changed the slashes to brackets because a specific accent (which people would try to emulate) needs a phonetic, rather than a phonemic, transcription.) Thanks again. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A plan is in the works to found a new UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and we are currently gathering support from the community. If you are interesting in being part of this new UK chapter as a member, a board member or as someone with a general interest in the chapter, please head over to m:Wikimedia UK v2.0 and let us know. We welcome help in making finishing touches to the plans. An election will be held shortly for the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board, which will take the chapter forward, starting to raise funds and generally supporting the Wikimedia community in the UK. Thanks for your time. AndrewRT 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't these be kitschier and kitschiest? The word kitsch is a noun, the adjecitve is kitschy. --EncycloPetey 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are some references to kitsch used as an adjective in the same way as the spelling kitschy, therefore I'd say that the forms are okay, however they may not stand up scrutiny as it may only be bad English. I'll tidy it up. --Williamsayers79 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now tidied up - your comment on amendment of kitsch explained it best.--Williamsayers79 20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if {{nav}} was still current, or if {{topic cat}} should be used in all cases. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware {{topic cat}} should be used for almost all topic categories and can be customised to certain degree. --Williamsayers79 19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is very minor, but for the Comparative of and Superlative of templates, it currently creates entries as follows:

Comparative form of glassy: more glassy.

Would a semicolon make more sense than a colon?

Comparative form of glassy; more glassy. sewnmouthsecret 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd say a semi-colon would make more sense. --Williamsayers79 07:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you pls add {{wikipedia}} template to the entry Arse. The entry is protected by you. Thanks in advance. Scl abvt 04:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is fairly old now, but please never block an IP indefinitely, as you did to 199.64.0.252. IPs are not like accounts; at some point they will be recycled to another customer, possibly even days or hours after the edits you saw it making. That's what happened today: someone found himself blocked for 2 years later "stupidity" and "idiocy" for fixing a pronunciation. On a related note, I think using logs like that is a bad idea. Block logs are public, and can often be displayed to people it wasn't intended for, as in this case. Best to use neutral, boring words. Dominic·t 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit raises questions for me. - Amgine/^talk 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you have been inactive on this Wiki for more than a year, your administrater status has been removed.

If you become active here again, and want to be an administrater again, just ask, and it can be provided without the need for a vote. SemperBlotto 14:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply