User talk:BD2412/Archive 6

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Status: Active. (e) Archives: 1 (10/05 - 06/06); 2 (07/06 - 9/15/06); 3 (9/15/06 - 3/12/07); 4 (3/12/07 - 6/28/07); 5 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 6 (1/08 - 8/08); 7 (9/08 - 12/09); 8 (12/09-12/11)

Procompsognathus etc[edit]

The pages on dinosaurs that you are creating are names of the genera (genus) and not species. They need to be capitalized, and technically are Translignual, not English. --EncycloPetey 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up on the caps. bd2412 T 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pansentience[edit]

How may I flag the pronunciation of this to be completed by someone with that knowledge?
In addition, how do I flag information from the Wikipedia Mindstream article to be extracted into a definition of Mindstream for Wiktionary?
Blessings in the Mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Links to Wikipedia articles can be brought up with a {{wikipedia}} template, and a pronunciation request is made by putting {{rfp}} on the page. bd2412 T 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your throughput.
B9 hummingbird hovering 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendix:Variations of "am"[edit]

As hippietrail points out in IRC, the Hebrew word referenced is not "am" (but em or im) Robert Ullmann 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. bd2412 T 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

but for[edit]

If but for is dicitonary-worthy because of its use in law, and if you know what it means (I don't), and if you have the time to add it, would you mind? Thanks much! (My first "if" — that I'm not sure it's a term in law — is because I don't know whether it's used alone, or only in phrases like but-for test or but for test, and, in fact, I'm not sure it's [but for]] as opposed to but-for.)—msh210 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see a usage example. I don't want to put the entry through RfV, though. I'm just curious as to whether it is used in law in a way that is not consistent with the sense of the prepositional use in ordinary English. I am assuming that the legal meaning is derived from the ordinary prepositional use. DCDuring 22:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll scare some up tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Home Depot[edit]

Great job citing. There are several other brands that have that kind of use. I think folks underestimate the role of brands in everyday conversation, esp. in US. The standards as written do force us to do a fair amount of work to find the attributable usage, though. DCDuring 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

but for[edit]

Is but for a preposition in its legalistic use? The definition you provided makes it sound like an adjective, and the quotations you've provided all seem to be using the mention of it as an attributive noun. —RuakhTALK 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It is probably an adjective, as it describes a type of causation or liability, i.e. that which would not have arisen "but for" the defendants acts. bd2412 T 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you have the time, and can find some quotes using it that way, I'd appreciate it. I'm really curious about this now. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few:

  1. 1992, Adolph M. Koven, Susan L. Smith, Donald F. Farwell, Just Cause: The Seven Tests, p. 342:
    A claim of harassment as mitigation presents a type of "but for" situation.
  2. 1993, Gregory K. Fritz, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Consultation in Hospitals, Schools, and Courts, p. 238:
    In law, "causation" refers to a "but-for" situation in which the negligent act or omission was the necessary antecedent to the harm...
  3. 1998, Michael Schatz, Robert S. Zeiger, Henry N. Claman, Asthma and Immunological Diseases in Pregnancy and Early Infancy, p.239:
    ...Causation in fact, sometimes referred to as "but for" causation, determines whether there is a connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury...
  4. 1999, Graham Virgo, Principles of the Law of Restitution, p.255:
    When the test of causation is analysed in these terms, it suggests that a test of operative rather than ' but for ' causation should be available...
  5. 2003, A. P. Simester, G. R. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, p.71:
    But it is important to realise that but for causation is no more than indicative of true legal causation.
  6. 2005, Martha M. Ertman, Joan C. Williams, Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture, p. 75:
    The concept of "but-for" causation is a "test used in determining tort liability".

Cheers! bd2412 T 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I see now. :-) —RuakhTALK 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks!—msh210 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

archiving[edit]

On RFV, please allow the automation to do the dirty work for you. It cross references better, consistently. --Connel MacKenzie 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Very well. But I will continue to be impatient about it! ;-) bd2412 T 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Me too. The thing is, from the time you strike out the heading, to when it goes away, is supposed to be 14 days (so others can see it and agree/disagree.)
You just reminded me though - if the entry itself is still tagged {{rfv}}, should I remove the tag, or skip archiving it? I knew there was another piece of the automation I wanted to add... --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I hit it and quit it - meant to do that, but I got caught up in another discussion first. bd2412 T 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

grc inflection templates[edit]

For the time-being, I'd much prefer to keep words in grc inflection templates unlinked. The simple fact is that almost no inflected forms currently exist. I am planning on writing a bot (when I learn how to program, that is) to write entries for them, in the same tone as SB's bot, but that has not yet happened. Would you mind terribly if I undid your work on Template:grc-decl-2nd? Atelaes 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, red links inspire entry creation. If they remain unlinked, people may never think to make the entries. Conversely, it surely does no harm for them to be linked. Suit yourself, but I'd much prefer to keep them linked. bd2412 T 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, red-links do some (admittedly very minor) harm in that they're simply ugly, compared to regular text. Also, grc has some issues that modern languages don't have, such as a smaller corpus. My intention is to incorporate a corpus search into my inflection bot, so that only forms that we actually have evidence for will get created. In common words, such as ἵστημι and ὁράω, all words will probably be attested, but for a lot of others, only a few words will be created. Also, somewhat differently with English, we really don't have a whole lot of casual contributors to grc (a few, but not many). So, the red links as impetus for creation is less poignant here. Atelaes 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection if you wish to revert pending this bot task, but I don't consider the minor change in appearance to be a harm at all. bd2412 T 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

JNOV[edit]

I hate to keep asking you law questions as if you're somehow obligated to answer them, but, well, you are the expert. So ignore this request if you like (obviously), but would you mind checking the entry JNOV for accuracy?—msh210 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that.—msh210 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It was truly my pleasure! bd2412 T 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Yes, I know. I am banned from Wikipedia. I'd rather not talk about it, but I am not breaking any ruling by being here right now, because I am not banned from Wiktionary and have never trolled here. I have two questions:

1) Is there any anti-vandalism tools programmed to Wiktionary?

2) If not, do you know where I can learn how to program Java Scripts?

Regards. Connell66 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So I see you're intentionally ignoring me, because you probably think I'm trolling. Connell66 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm unintentionally ignoring you because I'm hunting citations for words to be sure they're unused before I delete them, pursuant to RfV nominations. It wouldn't help if I was paying attention - unfortunately, I am not a technician, and am unaware of whatever anti-vandalism tools may be available here (in fact, I'm unfamiliar with those on 'pedia even!). My first thought would be to direct you to User:Connel MacKenzie or User:Keene, as they seem to be working with those sorts of tools (and would likely know who else is). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Audio[edit]

My first advice is to look here. It's a page I wrote quite some time ago for exactly what you're describing. When you've read it and played with your settings and your mic and such, nudge me again and I'll try to get you started with Shtooka, too, which is something that came along after I wrote that help page (but a nice trick, nonetheless).

  • Thanks, I will! bd2412 T 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I think unilateral action is unwise on hot potatos. At least two, I say. But, do you think I should have speedy-deleted to avoid public controversy? DCDuring TALK 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think either approach would have been appropriate. I would not have complained if you'd speedied, but equally can't complain of your listing the entry for deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T

and another law question[edit]

Sorry to keep bothering you, but do you think it'd be feasible for you to also check cy pres for accuracy, please?—msh210 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Touched it up a bit. It really should be at cy-près, with everything else listed as an alternative spelling. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!—msh210 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

citizen of a state[edit]

You say that "we don't link to Wikipedia articles on cases that merely use the term", but I don't see why not. We link to Wikipedia articles on authors and books that we quote; why would legal cases be different? —RuakhTALK 11:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he was using the {{wikipedia|}} template to link the cases in boxes at the top of the page. Links in the citations would be fine. bd2412 T 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I saw that the links I'd added to the citations had been removed, and I saw your edit summary, so I figured you had removed those links. Turns out he had removed my links, at the same time he added {{wikipedia}}. Sorry about that! —RuakhTALK 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. This person has added a bunch of nonsense to Wikipedia, his "definitions" are along the same lines. bd2412 T 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought there might have been room for something like that one-line def., even it is a platform for pushing PoV. It really doesn't matter if he has a PoV if the phrase might warrant entry. It's like a phrase that means a lot to scientologists or deists or atheists or pagans but not so much to others. Wouldn't context tag and usage note address your concerns? I really hate to see any phrase deleted that is actually used - even by PoV pushers. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
BD: forget the substance. This is just about an entry. There is more of a case for deleting much of the largely irrelevant PoV-pushing (even, arguably, your position, as reasonable and widely accepted as it may be) discussion (mostly about the substance) than for deleting the entry. A dictionary does not have to should not come to conclusions about the substance. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose a usage note would work, but the term simply has no actual meaning under the law. Absent the legally incorrect meaning that the contributor is trying to push, it is strictly sum of parts. Suppose, for example, that I decide that I wish to copy Joe Smith's copyrighted work, and I therefore go to Wiktionary and add a definition for "copyright" which adds the caveat, "excluding the works of Joe Smith". This would be an incorrect definition, and should be removed. Same goes for the definition that tax protesters push for "citizen of a state"; they try to create the impression (based on misrepresentation of case law) that the term carries not only the sum-of-parts meaning, but also means something more, that being "exclusive of citizenship in the United States" (or in "the several states"). This is a hoax, rather than a definition. bd2412 T 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I just hate for us to get involved in the substance. Stepping back, it is actually interesting that there is such an important distinction between the SoP and the context-specific set-phrase meanings. I think the difference is that there is at least a small community that takes the putative non-SoP meaning seriously enough to discuss it. It is like a balkan state ignoring what the UN had decided and instead saying that "greater X" is real. We (or WP) might well include "greater X" without advocating it in any way. (I would even argue that we are obligated to include it without advocating it.) Would an "offensive to|BD" tag help? ;-]) DCDuring TALK 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would find the inclusion of a flatly incorrect definition to be offensive - but shouldn't we all? bd2412 T 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

EJ[edit]

Planning World Domination or something? Robert Ullmann 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

? Is that a problem? I'm just trying to catch us up to the French! bd2412 T 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
With that much energy, you're either a guv'mint or a terra'ist, or maybe both :-) Robert Ullmann 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a very tiny fraction of a YJ. bd2412 T 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DAN[edit]

Hi there. I wasn't sure if "Symbol" was the correct term. Do you know if the letters stand for anything? By the way, NCBI seems to think it is also a gene. (One of these days, I'm going to start adding a few genes and see what hits the fan) SemperBlotto 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • p.s. I've gone for it - see ABCC11 (very very many more to go) SemperBlotto 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

yet another law question[edit]

Sorry to keep bothering you, but do you think you could also check stet docket for accuracy (and maybe add stet processus, which I don't know how to define), please?—msh210 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not familiar with this term (and it is not in Black's Law Dictionary). However, it does show up in some legal texts, apparently meaning a docket of criminal cases which the trial judge has postponed hearing indefinitely (and which will eventually be dismissed if the accused does nothing else criminal for, say, a year). bd2412 T 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agent noun template[edit]

Templates must not have ==language== or ===part of speech=== embedded in them. This also needs a "lang=" parameter. SemperBlotto 17:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure agent noun's exist in other languages, but I am only concerned with putting together those in English. I only plan to use the template as a shortcut until I finish that task, and then do away with it. Would it be acceptable if I move it to user space? bd2412 T 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of legal terms we don't have.[edit]

No, there are many, of course. But there are two I can think of: clawback and duces tecum. I don't know what they mean. The former is used in finance, but also in law (in discussions of evidence or discovery, I think); I'm not sure whether the law and the finance senses coincide. The latter, duces tecum, I don't know whether it's only as part of subpoena duces tecum or by itself (in which case, perhaps the longer phrase is a sum of parts). Any help you can provide will be appreciated, such, as y'know, writing the entries.  ;-) msh210 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clawback!—msh210 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about duces tecum. I think it can be used indepedently, but can't speak for the etymology. bd2412 T 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it literally means "you will draw ____ with you". (Duces < duco + tecum. The latter is a weird Latinism, the source of Italian teco and Spanish -tigo.) —RuakhTALK 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much.—msh210 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

special damages[edit]

Hi, I don't suppose you could take a look at special damages? Thanks in advance! :-)   —RuakhTALK 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is... complicated. bd2412 T 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

hey[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, i not only just created the help me template, but i have also just devised a whole new system of getting help on the Wiktionary, slightly similar to the one on Wikipedia, only attuned to the wiktionaries needs. So, just wanted to let yout know. I made this system after i realized that {{help me}} didnt get me help on what i wanted. So, now the wiktionary has a help system! Hooray! Im already receiving gratitude ( i wish...). So, just wanted to let an admin know. The7DeadlySins

letter agreement[edit]

Any idea what a letter agreement is, please?—msh210 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd say it's fairly straightforward - an agreement reached in a letter. I write you a letter offering to sell you my car; you write back agreeing to pay the requested price; we have a binding written contract, agreed to between those letters. Maybe SOP. bd2412 T 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you.—msh210 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{{alt}}[edit]

Do you know if {{alt}} gets much use? I ask because it's in the 3-letter template domain that is normally reserved for language codes. We don't have any "Southern Altai" entries yet, but its ISO code is alt. If it's not used too much, how about people use {{new alt}} (which {{alt}} just redirects to) and we change {{alt}} to be the language code? Seem ok? Cheers --Bequw¢τ 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have anything linking to it. I'm sure the functionality could be preserved at another name - I suggest you formally propose it for deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

polytheistically etc[edit]

The automation I am running would leave the all lc forms, so various searches would work, regardless of the casing looked-for. Whichever forms are valid should either be alt-spell or redirects? Robert Ullmann 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I made most of those redirects early on, before I was fully initiated into the CFI requirements. I am deleting them now because, although they are theoretically all valid alternative variations in capitalization or hyphenation, I am not sure that each one can be verified as actually having been used. bd2412 T 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pinyin and categories[edit]

Hi BD2412 You did a fine work with Category:Mandarin pinyin. There are still some entries in Category:Mandarin pinyin which have tonenumber. It is tone number 5 (which actually is the same as number 0). Should you also move them to the tone number category? Thanks :-) Kinamand 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just been waiting for the category contents to reset, then I'll handle the stragglers. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The 3rd case (tone 5) didn't have the "with tone number" cat; fixed. Robert Ullmann 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I missed that. bd2412 T 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:inflection of[edit]

There is no punctuation in the template, and this is intentional. This uses the gloss format of definition rather than the sentence format. --EncycloPetey 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's intentional, but I think it's wrong. It violates one of the few things that we're basically consistent about: if it's not a gloss, it shouldn't use the gloss format. —RuakhTALK 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If the template is being used to create a definition line, it should produce a result with an initial capital letter and a period at the end. Otherwise, a period will need to be added individually in each article. bd2412 T 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We have two styles of definition line in use on Wiktionary: (1) short gloss/translation/explanation, with a lowercase letter and no period (2) definition beginning with a capital letter and ending wtih a period. Both formats are in widespread use and both formats are legitimate in different situations. There also are technical problems with starting {{inflection of}} with a capital letter, particularly since there is not one set of possible terms that might lead off the template. If a user would like to have a particular use of the template begin with a capital letter, there is a way for the user to do it, but not using any of the preset shortcuts; the initial capital must be entered manually. If a user would like to include a period at the end, that also can be added manually to a particular entry's definition. However, it would be wrong to require all users to choose just one style by forcing the template to always end the line with a period. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me you could start every line with "The". Adding a period to individual definitions would potentially require thousands of edits for a job that could be done with just one. bd2412 T 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually you can't, because "the" implies definiteness, which is not the case for some inflected forms in some languages. There's also a problem of parallelism. For many entries, we have the inflection right alongside a lemma definition, which may be in either definition format. Requiring the {{inflection of}} template to be in one particular format means that we will have entries with both format types mixed together. That would look really unprofessional. --EncycloPetey 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Aren't we already going to have that problem wherever there's an inflection alongside a definition beginning with a capital letter and ending wtih a period? bd2412 T 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why it's important that this template be flexible to allow either format. This is the generic noun and adjective inflection template, so it has to be as flexible as possible. --EncycloPetey 03:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

to and fro[edit]

Hello BD2412 -- I respect you very much as an editor, but I do want to quibble with this edit. WT:QUOTE shows the citation line of quotations ending with a comma. It's quirky and it took me a while to get used to it, but that's the standard format according to the few standards we have, and I've followed it for some time. I suppose it does have the advantage of keep things simple -- every element in the citation line is separated by a comma. -- WikiPedant 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I did not know that. Actually, I've been replacing them with a colon wherever I see them. A comma looks wrong in that position, don't you think? If that's the standard format, perhaps the standard needs to conform itself a bit more to reality! bd2412 T 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I used to think that a colon looked natural, but after adding hundreds of quotations with commas, the comma is starting to look pretty natural too. That's the thing with conventions. They're ... er ... conventional. Seriously, I don't think it's worth the effort to try to change the format. I'm content to abide by it and edit away. -- WikiPedant 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer no end punctuation on the source information line, but that doesn't mean I'd argue strongly against other notions. WT:QUOTE is still a "Think Tank", and perhaps this conversation should be copied there to get more feedback. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus fish[edit]

I thought I'd let you know about this edit, per the etymology at ichthys (which I recently added). While I'm fairly confident on this, if you'd like to dispute it, I'm willing to do more digging. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well now I'm really not sure - I do think the entry calls for an etymology. bd2412 T 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The etymology Atelaes has given is the most often cited one. The fish was a covert sign among Christians when Christianity was still an illegal underground movement in Ancient Rome. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)