User talk:Metaknowledge: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Liliana-60 in topic why
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Liliana-60 (talk | contribs)
Line 183: Line 183:
You're basically approving his behavior with what you did. Was this really necessary? -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You're basically approving his behavior with what you did. Was this really necessary? -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:I think preventing him from posting on his talkpage is needless assholism, especially since we all know he can keep using proxies if he wants to. And it's not as if I reverted your removal of the whole tumor from his talkpage, which seems questionable enough to me on its own. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:I think preventing him from posting on his talkpage is needless assholism, especially since we all know he can keep using proxies if he wants to. And it's not as if I reverted your removal of the whole tumor from his talkpage, which seems questionable enough to me on its own. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
::It's not like I'm giving him the finger on purpose, I just want to prevent any further damage to be done to Wiktionary. The climate here is already intoxicated due to this RF/Dan conflict thing, I don't want it to get even worse. -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:44, 7 August 2013

Archive
Archives
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013

De lingua Latina

Salve domine linguae Latinae peritissime,

If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a few questions.

how would you say "if you don't mind"?
how would you say "once a week"?
how would you say "what a pity, what a shame"?
do you think sodete as a plural for (deprecated template usage) sodes exist?
what do you think of what I wrote on the talk page of (deprecated template usage) video? --Fsojic (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, I am not so skilled as you may think I am; trusting me will often work, but not always.
"if you don't mind" = si tibi non molestum
"once a week" = semel in hebdomade (there is probably a better way to say this)
"what a pity, what a shame" = tam misericors, tam ignominiosum
If sodete exists, I doubt it, for I have never seen it.
I agree, but the whole sentence feels wrong; I have substituted a better one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! And I have a few questions back :-)
For semel in hebdomade, don't you think it could mean "once in this week" (like "I'll do it this week, I don't know which day but I promise you it'll be done")? Shouldn't we add (deprecated template usage) quisque to highlight the idea of repetition?
For "what a pity", I was rather thinking of the meaning of (deprecated template usage) too bad. As in "You can't come to the party? Too bad."
For sodete, I haven't found it in dictionaries indeed. So it seems sodes can be used even when addressing several people? (don't hesitate to point out the English mistakes, they sure are legion) --Fsojic (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, adding quisque is a good idea. I can't really imagine how a Roman would be coerced into saying "too bad"; maybe you want to say tam infelix or something like that. And yes, sodes is an adverb, so it isn't really used for address (which would explain why it is invariable). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back

I hope that you had a good trip. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, it was excellent. The wikibreak may have been a good thing as well, although as you can see from my contribs, I miss editing Wiktionary. While traveling I carried a notebook in my pocket to record any words in Spanish that I found that I hadn't seen or heard before, and now I'm adding them all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've got the same habit. I absorb interesting and unfamiliar words that I encounter, and file them away in my brain or jot them down on whatever's conveniently available. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

פֿאַראייניקט

Does that really make a difference? I figured {{conjugation of}} was preferable for cases like this. —CodeCat 20:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

We use {{form of}} for all the Yiddish conjugated forms, in part because the excessive parameters are annoying (like specifying that it is indicative - in Yiddish, this is assumed). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh but you can remove those easily. Of course if it's normal to use {{form of}} then that's ok, but what about something more like {{got-verb form of}}, where the different "parts" are customised for Yiddish usage? —CodeCat 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't particularly need customisation, but if you want, we can. My only request is that if you make a template, that you apply it to the existing entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Template:mul-proper noun

If you are interested, see Template_talk:mul-proper_noun. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Foreign Word of the Day

Do you still want to actively work with FWOTD? You seem to have kind of given up. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The answer is mixed. It's true that I've been beyond negligent, and the only way I made myself feel better about forcing all the work on you was that you seem so suited to the job. I will admit that I edit Wiktionary more for the preservation of my own state of mind than out of true altruism, which explains my irregular editing patterns. I don't find FWOTD as rewarding, but I also think I should help to make up for a tiny bit of the labor I foisted upon you. But I think it's undeniable that you're the dictator of the FWOTD cabal (if you want to step down, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to deal with). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don’t plan on abandoning it, but I’ve been doing a horrible job. I really need someone else to help; would you be too angered if I asked for someone else to join as the third official co-FWOTD-setter? — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't get angered by statements of fact. CodeCat has expressed interest before, but she may very well be too busy; Angr would be a great choice as well if he is interested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reply

Oh, by the way, I replied to the post you made on my talk page. Cheers, Razorflame 21:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know; I just had nothing to say. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was kinda wanting you to reply since I still don't know why you brought it up. Sure, I know that I might be stepping out of my boundaries in terms of the languages I'm editing, but I'm only doing so after extensive research. I know that I have been careless and reckless in the past, and I mean to make up for it by being more careful now more than ever. I'm pretty much teetering on the brink of an indef ban at this point in time, and I don't want to ruin my ability to edit here simply because I was too careless or reckless. That's why the edits I make after extensive research only account for 2-3% of the edits that I'm going to make in the future in languages that I'm learning, and I will only do so after extensive research and validation to make sure that it is absolutely 100% before I even submit it. The only 97-98% of my future edits will be in Esperanto, Ido, Spanish, Kannada, and a little Italian. I hope to eventually be able to get proficient enough at Finnish to be able to make entries in that language here, but I know that I'm a ways off from being able to do so. I will be eliciting the help of a certain Finnish-speaking user here on the English Wiktionary for more help in getting used to the language, and in a few months time, I hope to be adding entries in Finnish :) Anyways, sorry for this rambling post, as this is going to be part of a message that I will be leaving the entire English Wiktionary community tomorrow, and I don't want people to jump to conclusions about my intentions like they have in the past. Anyways, thanks for reading this and cheers, Razorflame 21:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be obvious why I brought it up. You made an oath, and you broke it. Normally, that would be your own business, but in this case it may compromise the quality of Wiktionary entries, which makes it my business. The only conclusions I jump to are the ones suggested by your own history, much of it as detailed on your talkpage archives. By the way, I don't know anything about Kannada, but I can muster up some conversational ability in Esperanto, Ido, or Spanish if you want to talk in any of those languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I did make that oath, however, that oath was broken way in the past. Three years in the past, to be exact. Therefore, as I stated above, I'm making amends for what I've done in the past. The second I believe I'm harming this project is the day that I will stop editing in this project. Razorflame 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "ab ovo [usque] ad mala"

May I ask why you reverted my addition of "usque" to ab ovo ad mala? — Singlestone

The saying in its standard form is without usque and the headword line on that page should reflect the page title. Perhaps ab ovo usque ad mala should be created as an alternative form, but it can just as easily be made a redirect in my opinion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
What makes you say that the form without usque is the standard form? Horace uses it with usque in Satires book I, 1.3. I can't find a Latin citation of the other form. — Singlestone
I went searching around, you're right. Oddly enough, both forms with and without usque are cited to Horace, but the only copy I have handy uses it. I'll move it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

SC history

I don't want to continue a thread others have wisely decided to drop, so I'm posting this here rather than on Ivan's talk page, but I want to note that the vote to unify Serbo-Croatian actually didn't pass. It reached an insufficient level of consensus because of a lot of sock- and meat-puppeting and voting by non-members of en.Wikt, and histrionic comparisons of the merger to genocide (by respected veteran Wiktionarians!). It was only in later discussions that consensus was reached to merge BCSM. That absolutely does not invalidate the merger—most dialects which en.Wikt has merged have been merged following discussion rather than a formal vote—and I share your and Ivan's opposition to splitting them. But I want the history to be clear. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are we whispering? But in any case, you're right. I guess my retroactive application of Wiktionary policy is merely wishful thinking. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ha! I thought I was the only one who knew this. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pywikipediabot

I've configured it, but still unable to get the hang of it... I suppose I'll learn. What syntax should I use to replace {{foo|bar}} with {{quux}} (via replace.py)? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't normally use the pre-made scripts, I write my own in Python itself. If you don't know Python then that may take a little time to learn, but I learned Python more or less by making MewBot, so it's not that hard I think. Here is what I would write, based on the description you gave:
import wikipedia, catlib, re, string, sys

try:
	# Create a reference to the page "Template:foo"
	transc = wikipedia.Page(wikipedia.getSite('en', 'wiktionary'), u"Template:foo")

	# Retrieve a list of all transclusions to that page, and go over them one by one
	for page in transc.getReferences(onlyTemplateInclusion = True):
		new = old = page.get(get_redirect=True)
		
		# Do the replacement
		new = new.replace("{{foo|bar|", "{{quux|")
		
		# Skip saving if the page contents hasn't changed by the above
		if old != new:
			# Get editing restrictions
			rest = page.getRestrictions()

			# If there are no restrictions, save the new page
			if "edit" not in rest or rest["edit"] == None or rest["edit"][0] != "sysop":
				page.put(new, comment = u"Replace {{foo|bar| with {{quux|", minorEdit = False)
			else:
				wikipedia.output(u'Skipped [[{0}]], page is protected'.format(title))
		else:
			wikipedia.output(u'Skipped [[{0}]]'.format(title), toStdout = True)

finally:
	wikipedia.stopme()
The above is probably not the fastest or most ideal way to do it, but it works. —CodeCat 11:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's throwing an error report that mentions line 25 as the culprit; I tried fixing it but couldn't actually get it to work right. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
[moved to your talk page] Which line is 25 in your file? —CodeCat 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
wikipedia.output(u'Skipped [[{0}]]'.format(title), toStdout = True)
Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see why. Try changing "title" to "page.title()"? —CodeCat 01:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I forgot to tell you that it all works. I think I'm going to use regexes instead though, as it's nearer my comfort zone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Odd, though. I still can't get a simple (non-regex) text replacement to work; when I put in python replace.py -cat:Swahili_nouns summary:Template_update {{head|sw|noun}} {{sw-noun}} -ns:0 it responded:
-bash: noun}}: command not found
-bash: sw: command not found

And then precedes to scan the category's contents and tell me that there are no replacements to make, which is untrue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The pipe character has a special meaning in bash, so you should use double quotation mark. --Z 07:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I tried that already, putting the text to replace and text to be replaced in double quotes, but then I get a different error message:
Traceback (most recent call last):
 File "replace.py", line 967, in <module>
   main()
 File "replace.py", line 755, in main
   raise pywikibot.Error, 'require even number of replacements.'
pywikibot.exceptions.Error: require even number of replacements.

So I was trying to avoid that as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well this error is a progress actually, the previous error message was from bash which means the code could not be run at first place. The problem was that you didn't put a hyphen before "summary". --Z 08:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, my errors are so exceptionally stupid... Thank you, all is well now. In any case, I'm doing it semi-manually, so there won't be faulty edits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, since you agreed to try, here is the first request. I had created {{hy-example}} for Armenian and Old Armenian usage examples before we had {{usex}}. Now I want to delete {{hy-example}} and switch to {{usex}}. Can you replace all instances of {{hy-example|1|2|tr=}} (tr= is optional and usually is not provided; in rare cases 2 is also absent) with {{usex|1|t=2|lang=hy|inline=1}} or {{usex|1|t=2|lang=xcl|inline=1}}. The bot will have to determine the L3 header, either ===Armenian=== or ===Old Armenian===, and use lang=hy or lang=xcl, as appropriate. I realize this is not trivial and won't be sad if you are unable to help. --Vahag (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The answer is "maybe but not now". I think that sounds like an AWBish job anyway, but I might be able to do it, I don't know. However, I'm currently using the bot to delete thousands of deprecated templates, which will take many hours more (and it only runs when I'm online). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, no problem! --Vahag (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Didelphis gender

From Mammal Species of the World:

Didelphys Schreber, 1778, is an invalid emendation of Didelphis Linnaeus, and Leucodidelphys Krumbiegel, 1941, is an invalid emendation of Leucodidelphis Ihering, 1914. Didelphus Lapham, 1853, is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Didelphis Linnaeus.

I wonder if the spelling confusion contributed to gender confusion. I really don't see much gender confusion that is not eventually resolved. OTOH, there are cases where I can't tell what the gender might be because neither specific epithet not Etymology resolves it unambiguously, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, the spelling problems are likely because in Anglo-Latin (and I think in German Latin as well) all those spellings are pronounced identically. The gender confusion is more because 3rd decl -is nouns can easily belong to either gender; see google books:"Didelphis virginianus" versus google books:"Didelphis virginiana". But anyway, you know my opinion on gender and Translingual. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you have based your opinion on, so it's hard for me to share it. ~99% of the genera I have seen have genders that can be inferred from specific epithets or etymology. Of the balance some have no such evidence and a very few seem to have conflicting evidence, which might be resolvable if one knew more taxonomic history. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
On some level, I don't think we should have taxa at all. I often wish we could just export it all to Wikipedia, whose content we're duplicating anyway, or hell, Wikispecies, which is designed for this purpose. But in the end, I'm willing to accept it, I guess, but only in that it leaves Latin alone — true Latin, the Latin of running text. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
If they had all of etymologies, translations, interproject links, and vernacular names, then I'd be in favor of removal too. WP and WS don't seem to like each other and have no links between them. WP doesn't have much by way of translations/vernacular names and WS is quite spotty. Neither bother much with etymologies.
But I was interested in your statement about there being many genus names for which multiple genders were used. I just don't haven't seen all that much of it. Where would I look to find it? DCDuring TALK 22:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
What you've said is just false. Have you ever read Wikipedia? WP entries have etymologies and vernacular names more often than we do, and they link to WS as a rule. If they agreed to take us up on the offer of exporting it (and it wouldn't be hard to convince them, I think), they'd be doing pretty well with the combined info.
I don't know, nobody makes lists of these sorts of things IME. I was always just taught the correct scientific names (or, to be more exact, what was considered correct at the time), and gender discrepancies are just one of those things you start to notice if you read old comparative vertebrate anatomy books for fun. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're mighty quick with accusations. WP rarely has morphological etymologies and is spotty on the others. Considering the neglect of our entries over the years, I'm amazed by what we have. WP has hardly any vernacular name coverage for taxonomic names, though WS does. You are right about the links in WP to WS. It is the other direction that is mostly absent. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, that was pretty rude. I have a habit of writing what I want to say, and then deleting it because it's too rude, but sometimes it slips out. What the heck is a morphological etymology? I'd still contest the bit about WP and vernacular names, but WS is enough to cover it, in any case. But I think you want to keep it all at WT and improve it, if I understand your position correctly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Changes to Template:reconstructed

What are they for? —CodeCat 19:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Formerly, if WT:About Proto-Algonquian didn't exist, there'd be an ugly redlink at the top that's not likely to get created anytime soon. Now it only links iff that page exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's the point of red links though, to show that something needs to be created. Trying to hide them defeats the whole point. If you just don't like the red, use CSS styling to make it black or something. —CodeCat 19:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, because I don't really think that the creation of protolanguage About pages is especially important. There are some exceptions, like your WT:AGEM, which is useful because there are a few different contributors regularly editing and creating PGmc pages, but for most protolanguages, only one person is going to be dealing with them for the foreseeable future. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Flood flag removal

You really should remember to remove the flood flag after you're done with it. This is the second time I've seen you do other things with it on other than what you were going to do with it on...you should get in the habit of removing it right after you are done with it, even if you still have more stuff with it left to do. Razorflame 04:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is why I de-flagged you the other day, btw: I noticed you weren't making any more mass edits, and didn't notice that you were still making mass deletions (sorry!).
Don't feel bad, I've forgotten to de-flag myself quite a few times... - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Both of you: Yeah, I make some edits while I'm flood-flagging, although a lot (most?) of it is vandalism reversion, or edits on discussion pages. Hopefully, after the Luacisation period we'll never have to delete thousands of templates on Wiktionary ever again, which is the only reason I'm using my main account for this job.
@Razorflame: You don't seem to understand quite how it works, but more to the point I feel like you're writing this message as an oblique response to my last message to you. Yes, I'm not perfect either, but in light of your editing history, I feel like you have even less of a right to be patronising to me than I do to you. (Not that I should be patronising at all, but I'm frustrated.)
@-sche: It doesn't really matter much; you can de-flag me if you notice I'm done before I do. This category should be the last for now. At a rate of 6 deletions per minute, though, RC stands no chance of being useful at all if you de-flag me prematurely. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nope, I wasn't writing this in response to what you wrote on my talk page. Furthermore, I have every right to patronise someone if I see they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing with the flag. I think you are forgetting that I've actually been an administrator on another project in the past, and in addition to that, I also know everything there is to know about the flood flag. I know it should only be used if you are going to be flooding the recent changes, and I know that that's the only reason it should be used for. If I were in your situation, I would've deflagged myself before talking on other people's talk pages and then reflagged myself to finish what I was doing. So your comment isn't that valid. Furthermore, just because someone has a bad edit history does not mean that they have any less right to be critical of someone else. Razorflame 23:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you were in my situation, you wouldn't be running a bot, because you have a history of questionable editing and your bot is blocked AFAIK. So yeah, I think we should all stop being patronising based on the principle that being an asshole is bad, but right now I'm really annoyed at you, so I'm having trouble convincing myself of that precept. I should think that if you started following the rules I wouldn't have any problem with you lecturing people, including myself, now and then. At the current time, however, I'll gladly see you spend your time tagging the entries you added in error for deletion rather than telling me exactly how to do my work. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't referring to that. I was saying if you and I had switched places and we had inherited each others' reputations and everything, that's what I wouldn't have done. Furthermore, I'm not telling you how to do your work. I'm giving you a suggestion. As for the entries, I'll get to marking the ones that I can't find any sources for for deletion tomorrow. Razorflame 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If it's really a suggestion, then you ought to learn how to phrase it thus. It sounds like a polite command, really. In any case, I await your long-promised weeding. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

why

You're basically approving his behavior with what you did. Was this really necessary? -- Liliana 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think preventing him from posting on his talkpage is needless assholism, especially since we all know he can keep using proxies if he wants to. And it's not as if I reverted your removal of the whole tumor from his talkpage, which seems questionable enough to me on its own. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not like I'm giving him the finger on purpose, I just want to prevent any further damage to be done to Wiktionary. The climate here is already intoxicated due to this RF/Dan conflict thing, I don't want it to get even worse. -- Liliana 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply