User talk:Qehath: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Liliana-60 (talk | contribs)
The final chance
Line 171: Line 171:


:::::::I think that at this point, most people ''are'' familiar with his behavior. -- [[User:Prince Kassad|Prince Kassad]] 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I think that at this point, most people ''are'' familiar with his behavior. -- [[User:Prince Kassad|Prince Kassad]] 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: This is the first and only time that I am serious about this. I will seriously only edit those five langauges. If I stray at any point, you may block me indefinitely. This will be the final chance. [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#00C">Raz</b><b style="color:#009">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#006">fl</b><b style="color:#003">am</b><b style="color:#000">e</b>]] 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


::::: As a wise ''Futurama'' character once said: Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::::: As a wise ''Futurama'' character once said: Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:30, 17 June 2010

Be warned. If you bite, I bite back.

Anything is possible if you don't know what the bloody hell you're talking about.

Archive 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010


Find someone else to suck the life out of

Account must predate start of vote by one week

Yup. Remove anyone's vote (possibly apart from abstain, as that's a null vote) on either side. You have my blessing. Although, where are such records available? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but I got reverted pretty quickly so fuck it. :) If you go to the public logs for a user, one will say "Account created" or "Account created automatically" or something like that, like here[ R·I·C ] opiaterein13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously.

At this point in time, it seems that you have an unreasonable bias against Razorflame. I am hereby asking that you not take matters with this user into your own hands, that you not block him, and that you please try not to interact with him. Every time you do, it looks like abusive behaviour and harassment even when I'm trying to look at it objectively. And trust me, I do not take RF's side in things, but you're stepping way over the line here. --Neskaya contribstalk? 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I care about Wiktionary being as correct as possible. Oh wait... No, that seems like what I should care about. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Block log); 11:27 . . Neskaya (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Opiaterein (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 15 seconds (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Learn to take criticism. You're not always right.)

Message? 'We don't appreciate you caring about carelessness'. Amirite? No of course not ^_^ — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks that Neskaya is telling you that she is taking on the role of inspecting RF's edits for possible mistakes, dispensing appropriately tuned corrective justice as necessary. --Ivan Štambuk 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is Neskaya going to check for mistakes when Neskaya doesn't speak all the languages that RF thinks he knows? Even I can't take it all on. I'm getting really tired of this whole stupid pile of nonsense. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually working on trying to get him to limit himself to English and things that need doing in English, and sometimes it actually works. In the mean time, every time that you block him/intimidate him/et cetera, every single bit of what I do gets undone. It is possible to work with him, but you're going about it the wrong way right from the start. --Neskaya contribstalk? 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you're the only person who is capable of dealing with him and everyone else doesn't know what they're doing. lol like you've been watching how I deal with him from the start. K. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs stress marks (<ˈ> invalid IPA characters (<>) and <ˌ> invalid IPA characters (<>)).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're gonna show things like aspiration, which isn't phonemic in English, make the transcription phonetic (using brackets).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. I'll put stress on the only multisyllabic word, but I don't think the secondary stress is predictable enough to warrant inclusion... too dynamic. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the most part. Secondary stress depends a lot on pragmatics in that phrase. In natural (i.e., non-boasting &c.) speech, I reckon secondary stress falls on (deprecated template usage) have.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd put it on 'have' if I were following up with something else... like "I have a big penis, but blabla" something. So I think it depends on context, the person's personal speaking style... there's just too many factors to include secondary stress. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, (deprecated template usage) have receives extra stress (denoted by <ˈˈ> invalid IPA characters (<>)) because of emphasis, which is atypical usage; the same can happen with any phrase, if one is making a point that hinges on a particular word (it can happen with intraverbal stress, too, like when people make a point of distinguishing (deprecated template usage) affect: [ˈˈæ.fɛkt] from (deprecated template usage) effect: [ˈˈiː.fɛkt]). However, secondary stress will vary in that phrase, so much so that it isn't "predictable enough to warrant inclusion", as you said.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that extra stress... that's pretty neat :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the suprasegmentals section of this chart. The extra stress symbol should have its own glyph, but I've never been able to find it.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for deletion

Some decisiveness, that's what I like to see. Good on ya. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might not have done it if I weren't feeling vindictive, and like there's a disproportionate amount of hypocrites here :) Every passing day brings me another reason to hate this utterly thankless business. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking. You support deleting do you accept credit cards but keeping I have a big penis? The phrasebook is supposed to include common, useful phrases. It really appears as though you have a very distorted idea of what phrases are commonly used. --Yair rand (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get laid. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence with the credit cards is completely useless in whole countries, if not continents (Third World), whereas bragging about penes is at least universal and has been common for at least several millennia (whilst credit cards are an emergent contraption). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pronunciation of I have a big penis; I have a question related to that entry: would it be more common in English to say "I have a big penis" or "my penis is big"? In Portuguese, the literal translation of the I have part would probably be considered redundant for a man to say. --Daniel. 09:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually don't say penis very often, it'd be much more likely to hear someone say that they've got a big dick or cock. But yeah, in English you'd probably say have or got. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

DOB is on my user page as it happens. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's sad is that I knew that. Damn. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein21:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Do I detect a hint of sexual frustration? Or possibly hypersexuality. Either way it's thoroughly entertaining. Jakeybean 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no, not either. Martin linked to it and said that since he made it a red link that someone would probably create it. So I did. :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Jakeybean 21:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Novel

YES! I hate books whose titles end with "A Novel". They are nearly always vanity-published self-edited bullshit about vampire sex. If I must cite one, I make a point of removing "A Novel" from the title. Equinox 12:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in my cave until this retarded Vampires vs Werewolves thing is over. Until then, plz supply me with Dan Brown and Anne Rice LoLoL. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish entries.

Zeyer gut! --Neskaya contribstalk? 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a second look at קויפֿן? I was expecting the word order to be different (Ikh hab a groyse tish gekoyft) based on German, but since everything I can find online points to gekoyft coming before groyse tish, I'm not so sure now. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The little voice in my head that reads the sentence and tells me if it is right or not says that it is right. Gekoyft can very rarely be at the end of the sentence, but I don't remember the exact rule for it, and therefore it's better to place it before the object. --Neskayagawonisgv? 18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, but since this has been deleted 5 times, maybe it's time to try something else. Why not move it to Appendix:English:Sex or something similar? Nadando 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working with Daniel on expanding the phrasebook stuff (Template talk:phrasebook) so eventually that's exactly where I'll be putting it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're only restoring this for a laugh though? In order to show how ridiculous the phrasebook is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. I'll readily admit my love of sex and I think it's silly to have a phrasebook that excludes a sex section especially when there are tons of paper phrasebooks devoted to sex and foul language. If we pride ourselves on containing "all words in all languages", why be prudish about the phrasebook? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the last thing you're expecting me to say, but I can't think of a single reason to disagree. However, just for the sake of sanity we should support the 'conclusion' of the 'vote' going on at WT:RFD. No maverick stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not many of the people that took part in that "debate" if you can call it that have decided to comment on my crushing logic :D So if I were to close it I'd just say "no consensus, if you want to bring it up again later bring logic and not bias" but yeah that wouldn't really score me any points in any positive categories. I just think most of the opposition to sex phrasebook stuff was so biased that it'd be impossible to make them see reason. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a number of other admin types have deleted this entry, should probably stay deleted. Since you are very fond of it I think a reasonable thing to do would be to push it into your userspace and delete it from the main namespace which would appease all of the very many delete voters. This is what I am now going to do. Have a nice day! - [The]DaveRoss 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I want you to also delete every other phrasebook entry. But no, you won't do that. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein00:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not probably stay deleted. I think that the reasonable thing to do is for you not to push your conservative morality into a dictionary. --Ivan Štambuk 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's even been able to refute my logic for keeping it. They've just had to go into opposing the whole phrasebook. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that's why I've been pushing the entry back. I don't have anything for or against it in particular; it's simply important that ridiculously flawed logic is not used as a justification. --Ivan Štambuk 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for fixing the Persian translation. I was about to change for Template:Arab this morning but I saw your edit. Are pronouns usually dropped in Persian in this type of sentences? --Anatoli 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the subject is being stressed. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Anatoli 01:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth did you create [[I'm a Christian]] and [[I'm a Muslim]] but [[I'm Jewish]]? Why not be consistent: a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, or Christian, Muslim, Jewish?​—msh210 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... if you want to create I'm a Jew you can, but I've only heard Jews say I'm Jewish. Consistency doesn't lead to correctness, and since I'm Jewish in my personal experience has been more common, that's why I made it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein17:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame

He's asking me to unblock him but I'm a bit reluctant. Was there something wrong with his Polish entries? Any "promises" broken again? --Ivan Štambuk 13:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that every single time someone tells him to stop messing with a language because he's making mistakes or doing something questionable, he just moves on to another language. I don't speak Polish at all, so I don't know if there's anything wrong with them... but until Maro or someone notices he's doing Polish, we have no way of knowing.
He also claimed for a long time that he was eo-2, but he doesn't even know such basic grammar points as accusatives... or the basic personal pronouns. So if he can't even really edit in a language that he supposedly has an intermediate knowledge of, I see no reason to keep believing that he'll ever start to edit more cautiously. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRuakhTALK 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time RF asked me to unblock him I just said 'no'. Just ban him IMO, he's a nice enough guy but lacks responsibility. We're not Facebook, being 'nice' doesn't exempt you from blocks. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I don't indef block him is that I expect someone to come and undo my block, but I'd be delighted to change it if it doesn't twist anyone's knickers up too much. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got this far in my talk with him:

  • He promises to only edit in English, Esperanto, Ido, Spanish and Italian. He claims to have enough grasp of these languages to make basic entries, and that he makes very few errors. He won't add example sentences.
  • He promises not to edit in any other languages. He will only edit other languages if there is another knowledgeable editor willing to verify his edits, making necessary corrections and stuff.

I think that this block was unwarranted because he didn't do anything wrong. But I understand your concern for him editing in languages that he doesn't speak, with nobody around to check it. What do you think about the compromise above? --Ivan Štambuk 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He always says that... literally every time, he says "ok I'll only edit in these few" but that typically lasts a week. His promises are worth about a nickel. For more than a year he's followed this pattern. Editing a language he doesn't know, someone telling him to stop until he knows more of that language, then him moving on to another language. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But he claims that he'll persist in his promise now, because he knows that the community doesn't have much patience left and violating it would bring indefblock upon him. I think that we should give him another chance. He's a good-faith editor, and with proper restraints he could be a productive force. I'll unblock him now and ask him to confirm this on his talkpage. Please don't be mad :P --Ivan Štambuk 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a bit premature. -- Prince Kassad 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, You don't have to monitor anything because I only add information that is correct.. That is so brilliant, that should be prominently displayed for everyone to see on the Sitenotice. -- Prince Kassad 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"But he claims that he'll persist in his promise now". He's been claiming that for how without actually doing it? Three months, six, twelve? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened, happened. Everybody deserves a second chance. People learn from their mistakes. Razorflame is willing to make a clean start, and we should let him do it. He's aware that if he fails to uphold his promise this time, that he'll find himself blocked for a long, long time. I see this outcome as nothing but a win-win situation, really.. --Ivan Štambuk 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a second chance and maybe a third... but not a seventeenth. Razorflame does not learn from his mistakes. He has made them over and over and over and over and over. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come nobody has started a vote on that yet? -- Prince Kassad 14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because people who aren't familiar with his irresponsible behaviour will want to give him the benifit of their doubt. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at this point, most people are familiar with his behavior. -- Prince Kassad 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first and only time that I am serious about this. I will seriously only edit those five langauges. If I stray at any point, you may block me indefinitely. This will be the final chance. Razorflame 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a wise Futurama character once said: Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. —RuakhTALK 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]