User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2007-6

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
back to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie/archive

Re:Quick reminder

Hi, umm..my English isn't at the moment working that well in my head, quite bussy etc. etc... :) What did you mean by what you wrote? -- Frous 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't create redirects. I've cleared the ones you entered, but please don't enter any more. (There are exceptions to that rule for idioms, but in general, sysops don't have to delete the redirects if you don't create them.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Editting WT:CFI

I have responded on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning patronymic: Tchaikovsky's first name is Pyotr, and Wikipedia's article on Tchaikovsky redirects to w:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (which only gives Peter parenthetically as a translation). I think it therefore best that we also give his name as Pyotr, not Peter. What do you say? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is en.wikt, not ru.wikt; the target audience here is English speakers who cannot be familiar with the spelling "Pyotr" and are unlikely to even recognize it as a name. "Peter", on the other hand, has the benefit of correlating to the first line of that table indirectly. --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Then how about using Nikolay + evich (Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy)? The problem is that we're the example is intended to show how suffixes form patronymics in Russian. Anyone seeing "Peter" in the table, and who knows anything at all about Russian, will wonder whether how much is Russian and how much is Anglicization. Incidentally, why is this the only example that gives a full name instead of just the patronym? --EncycloPetey 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anagrams

To answer your question... No, WT:ELE explicitly lists ===Anagrams=== as a L3 header. --EncycloPetey 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* That means that HT never did make it formal. We could end up with 10 votes a month at this rate. (Waitasec - that would be a Good Thing.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be worth keeping separate, myself. It's much more common to see Anagrams than Trivia (the latter I think I've seen only twice since I started on Wiktionary). If Anagrams has to go under Trivia, we'd be adding lots of "empty" section headers whose only purpose is to subsume Anagrams to the appropriate level. I dislike empty section headers. --EncycloPetey 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. --Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Anagrams occurs 742 times at level 3, 22 times at L4, and never in a "Trivia" section. Trivia occurs 23 times at L3, 13 times at L4. No particular issue here, just leave it alone? (someone might bother themselves with fixing the 23 L4 cases for Anagrams?) Robert Ullmann 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I shall just leave it alone. --Connel MacKenzie 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to find them. Likewise for "Trivia", if there were a consensus on what level it should occupy. --EncycloPetey 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Anagrams at L4:

Wiktionary:Entry layout explained deal art speak low emit kin user fate moat flour Santa mace birdsong slime Satan marital lows emits User:Pathoschild/Wiktionary:Style guide (entries) no hampurilainen quene underflow

  • Trivia:

Wiktionary:Entry layout explained the abstemious orange Talk:the LA eventually grammar Template talk:punctuation quixotry Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/July-September 04 cardamom tonto nugatory facetious almighty dollar Transwiki talk:Synchronous communication User talk:Wytukaze arsenious trivia Hecate User talk:Rfc1394 Trivia zyxt azureus board game bookkeeper Tetaumatawhakatangihangakoauaotamateaurehaeaturipukapihimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuaakitanarahu uncopyrightable McQuarrie Talk:quaint precipitevolissimevolmente lilliputian Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/2006/April stewardesses User:TheDaveRoss/to saurus/cleanup Canes Venatici humuhumunukunukuapuaa Transwiki:Copious free time Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften User:TheDaveRoss/to saurus/cleanup/Tutorial Draft Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/format Wikisaurus:interment Wikisaurus:dog User talk:Charles Hodgson Wikisaurus:sole reverberate Talk:omelet User:Ronja Addams-Moring Father's Day Talk:Micro$oft Meriam trivial name little green man gladiolus zenial passage User:Pathoschild/Wiktionary:Style guide (entries) fanservice cupboardy User:Robert Ullmann/L3/valid Transwiki:Nixon in China (phrase) Transwiki:List of Latin phrases (P–Z) 띠앗 Ophiuchus Transwiki:Glossary of differential geometry and topology Transwiki:Glossary of graph theory Transwiki:Gumption Transwiki:Hate figure Transwiki:Kukini Transwiki:Topology glossary Appendix:Chinese surnames Jáchym Vilma balefire User:AutoFormat/Headers queueing Transwiki:Cloud cuckoo land User talk:A-cai/2007

--Connel MacKenzie 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

XGustaX

He says he was simply trying to recind his deletion request/rfv.

Do the instructions atop RFV mention that you can't do that? Perhaps that could be clarified (that you cannot stop an RFV once started, unless there is consensus it is clearly in widespread use. Maybe?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The instructions for the whole process do have some vague points, but the main thrust says "A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise." It doesn't say who will do the removing or where it will be removed to upon removal. (It also doesn't say that anything will be resolved before removal.) However, this isn't the first time XGustaX has been blocked for removing content from pages. Cynewulf previously blocked him, so this block was set longer. I also looked at his edit history to see what his contributions were; nearly all of his approximately 65 edits are for Afro-Argentine and related terms, and the discussion pages for those entries. Given that history, he's not missing out for having been blocked a second time. --EncycloPetey 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not suggesting he should be unblocked. I quite agree that he's gone about it wrong, and after being blocked once already. I am suggesting we review the wording atop WT:RFV. We should explicitly state there that you can't just recind a verification that is alredy in progress (particularly one with heated discussion.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite true. There are a number of such pages that could benefit from a slight rewrite for clarity's sake. --EncycloPetey 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it.Wiktionary

Hi Connel, I've searched the discussion in it:Wikt about removing translations etc. but I couldn't find anything like that. Can you please give me the exact link? --Barmar 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could. GerardM popped in on IRC and mentioned something about it, then disappeared. I am quite curious about the whole thing, now. --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I just read through it:Wikizionario:Bar; there is an interesting lament that the quality of the en.wikt for Italian words is often better than the it.wikt ... ;-), about it:rakeback as an Italian word, etc. But as she says, nothing that sounds like what you say Gerard mentioned. Robert Ullmann 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Replied back on User talk:SemperBlotto#Italian Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can second the findings of the Italian words on it.wikt - there are incredibly few definitions of Italian words and mostly just list of translations. If you hit the random button you are more likely to get Chickasaw than Italian. But it.pedia is pretty good. SemperBlotto 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I think it is pretty POV (and incorrect) to have a British flag on entries like it:Colorado beetle. --Connel MacKenzie 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ISO 639 of Indonesian

Hi there, Mr. MacKenzie. You may already know this, but just in case: there are 742 languages in Indonesia. Each is distinct and unique to each other. Example: The English counterpart for "red" is "merah" in Indonesian (standard), but it's "abang" in Javanese, and "beureum" in Sundanese. Here are some examples of ISO 639 of Indonesian languages:

Indonesian (national language) ISO 639-1: id ISO 639-2: ind ISO 639-3: ind

Javanese (75 mil speakers) ISO 639-1: jv ISO 639-2: jav ISO 639-3: jav/jvn/jas/osi/tes

Sundanese (27 mil speakers) ISO 639-1: su ISO 639-2: sun ISO 639-3: sun


All of them are languages of Indonesia, and their positions are equal (e.g.Javanese is not a dialect of standard Indonesian, nor is Sundanese). When I mention "Standard Indonesian", I am most certainly referring to "Bahasa Indonesia" (Indonesian Language), our national language. It is to differentiate it from the other languages and dialects of Indonesia.

If you think this method is in anyway inappropriate, please inform me.

Thank you for your kind attention! —This unsigned comment was added by Jiwa Matahari (talkcontribs).

second

The sense you added was already there, just under the first pronunciation. Where you added was for the pronunciation in which the second syllable is stressed. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone points out one more error I've made today, I'm going back to bed.  :-)
Thank you for fixing it. --Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

bot bug?

Hi Connel,

Your bot seems to have some sort of bug; it deleted huge swaths of content from Transwiki:Italian music terminology. I've now reverted it back to the previous version.

At least, your bot seems to have had some sort of bug back in February; if you've since fixed it, I don't suppose you could have it make another pass over that article?

RuakhTALK 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bug was trying to remove subst'ed AfDs from articles. That part was turned off that week, and since removed. The way it can be redone is to have the Wikipedia article restored, and re-tagged with "{{dicdef}}" (and remove the talk page template that says it has already been transwikied, if that is there.)
On the other hand, it is much easier just to remove the template references on their own, manually. --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wiki (WMF) jargon

It looks fine (for you (but then you don't have parens enabled for context) but not for me). How about just Wiki jargon or maybe Wikimedia jargon? Or WMF jargon, if it's not too cryptic. DAVilla 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - if you could fix it, I'd appreciate it. "Wikimedia jargon" sounded too terse, to convey the fact that it covers these nine (or is it 10?) projects in numerous languages. The parenthesis obviously went over the top.  :-( Oh well. "Wiki jargon" doesn't work, as this is (explicitly) not meant for terminology of all wikis, only WMF wikis. Fortunately, I can't think of an example word that would apply to all wikis, but not WMF wikis. And when the day comes that such jargon is invented, I wouldn't want special dispensation for it; I'd want those terms to go through normal WT:CFI/WT:RFV processes. --Connel MacKenzie 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I came here to comment on Category:Wiki (WMF) jargon. Personally, I would prefer separate Category:Wiki jargon, Category:Wikimedia wiki jargon, and Category:Wiktionary jargon, each of which is a subcat of the previous. Also, the first category linked to above says, "Entries are added to this category using {{wjargon}}." But this isn't true. There seem to be some double redirects related to this category, as well.[1][2] - dcljr 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It was pure laziness that I didn't want to get into figuring out which ones are used on Wikipedia, which ones are used on Wiktionary, which ones are used on both, or which ones are used in #wikimedia-tech. The collection as a whole is a small number of entries, so combining them into a WMF jargon thing still seems appropriate to me. Putting them into small sub-categories would be overkill, IMHO. But if you want to fix the whole thing up (especially the templates) knock yourself out!  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete conjunctive adverb?

Why did you delete conjunctive adverb? --Metzenberg 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. It was an incorrect transwiki.
  2. GFDL violation.
  3. Deleting the incorrect transwiki allows a proper move from Transwiki:conjunctive adverb, when ready.
  4. Entry was formatted for Wikipedia (useless here.)
etc. --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-en"

Why, exactly, do words for which -man is converted to -men not belong in this category? They are exactly the words for which the category was created! bd2412 T 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I do recall having done a little research on "irregular plurals" these past couple years. The rules normally taught in elementary schools, cover '-man' ---> '-men' as "regular." But since that does seem to be exactly what that category is there for, I've removed the cleanup request. I've still got a feeling of minor discomfort about it though. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
We could change the category to English irregular plurals ending in "-en" or "-men", although that seems redundant to me. Or we could do what was done with the "-es" and "-ies" endings, which was to simply remove "irregular" from the category name. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Template: trans-mid

Hi Connel. Are we no longer using the trans-mid template in the translations? I'm coming across many entries that have the template within them, however only the code is showing in the translations. Apparently someone has made some changes to the trans-top template. --Dijan 05:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do rememeber that the stylesheet approach was suggested for a column-balancing method, but I don't recall it getting approval. It is certainly news to me, anyhow. AFAIK, we are supposed to use {{trans-mid}} still. --Connel MacKenzie 07:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This is in WT:GP... --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a break?

Hi Connel. Was this really such a good idea? He’s pissed off, you’re pissed off... people do stupid things when they’re pissed off. May I kindly suggest that you take a step back, and go take a break (do the stereotypically British thing — go drink a cup of tea or something)? It’s best not be angry when doing things (especially nominating people for de-sysoping) — you may end up doing something that you regret (or you might already have). Of course, I may not know the situation, and Richardb’s most recent actions may be the straw that broke the camel’s back, but judging what I see, you both just need to calm down. Please take this in the spirit that it is meant — as friendly advice. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. --Connel MacKenzie 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Random cleanup

See this diff.

What does this mean? ( испо́льзующего (ispól'zujuščego) -> испо́льзующего (ispól'zujuščego) )

--Jaroslavleff 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It means I goofed with extra ]]'s and [['s. All better now? --Connel MacKenzie 07:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Now it's better, but not best. There is an stress after "о" in "испо́льзующего", which we must not use in wikilink. Correctly it will be [[использующего|испо́льзующего]]. --Jaroslavleff 07:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And for ispól'zujuščego also? P.S. Thanks you for catching these! --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's useless to wikilink word "ispól'zujuščego", because it is only a roman transliteration for those who cannot read cyrillic fonts. --Jaroslavleff 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An olive branch ?

Connel,

sorry for the hard time, but.... you know what.

However, as usual I'm not going to let such arguments get in the way of trying to cooperate with you, and, in the past, you too have proven able to bounce back and genuinely try to cooperate with me too, no matter how much we have slagged each other off.

So, let's try, in private at first - just you and me, to agree some reasonable compromise over Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria

I've redrafted it in User:richardb/Wikisaurus criteria. Please have a look, and see if we can reasonably discuss it, and come up with a fair compromise. Or, if necessary, try to refine where we cannot agree, and what we can agree on. Please put the discussion there (mostly on the talk page), and just post a note in user talk:Richardb to let me know when you have done it.

I look forward hopefully to seeing if we can work this one out reasonably. Without need to resort to baseball bats.

With respect, Richard.--Richardb 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I try that last time, only to have you immediately drop off the face of the earth?
There is one CFI, not two or three. Formatting (i.e. prohibiting wikilinking of garbage) is curiously also absent. Richard, you reworded what you had, without changing the essence of what is there. The whole "1,000 web hits" was only your personal suggestion, but it was always dismissed out-of-hand!
If you sincerely mean what you say above, then take a shot at rewriting it again. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A) Please bear in mind that not all of us have the luxury of being able to spend as much time as you on the project. I can only spare the time occasionally.
B) I can't recall you trying to rewrite this before. I may be mistaken. But when I invited you to, you did improveTemplate:Wikisaurus-more, and I accepted that. I need to use that more widely in Wikisaurus. (On checking page history, the only work you have done on this criteria page was to RFD it recently).
C) Since it was first written, Semi-protection has come in, and the /more seems to have been accepted as a considerable improvement. I have inciorporated those.
D) I've basically agreed that standard CFI should apply to the Wikisaurus primary page. I'd say that is a considerable movement on my part.
E) Formatting (i.e. prohibiting wikilinking of garbage) is curiously also absent. I realised this after I went to bed, but then I also thought there should be some room for you to have some input, so it is seen as a real joint effort. I'd be happy if you put something in there about that. In effect it is there for the primary page anyway. And when you dewikifiedWikisaurus:prostitute/more I was happy enough to leave that, and am now trying to make that policy - with your involvement.
F) There isn't just one CFI. Exceptions are made for Appendix, Concordances, LOP, and in pracgtice the CFI is not applied to the vast majority of entries. Why not for the few Wikisaurus/more pages. As I repeatedly say, isolating and limiting the trash in these few pages is better than having people try to put the stuff throughout the main dictionary, with all the admin and aggro that leads to.
G) I'm asking for a compromise. I think I have' gone quite a long way to a compromise, to limit the impact of the offensive words, and really reflecting current common practice.
Without this sort of compromise, we have the problem of terms such as business girl being too easily wiped out. And yet, on further investigation of this word I found plenty of citations spread over the whole 20th century. What would have happened to "business girl" if I hadn't spotted it being RFV'd. We would perhaps have lost that word, and perhaps would have p'd off someone who is currently an active contributor. Whereas, under this policy it would have been easy enough to put the word into the appropriate /more page as a temporary holding place, until eventually someone decided to do the cite research. We would retain the value. Same with words like streetwalker that someone decided to knock out of Wikisaurus:prostitute at some time. Is Wiktionary really going to be truly a dictionary of "All words in All Languages" without words such as these somewhere in them. You might not knock such words out, but other people have attempted to knock them out, citing "not meeting CFI" as the convenient reason. We need to make it possible to sensibly retain these types of words, even if they do not strictly meet full strength CFI.
Another problem we have is that many recent, popular terms have not made it into print, so it may be hard to find the necessary cites. But the words are out there, in wide use. Should we not find a way to include those words, for completeness. Or are we only going to be a Wiktionary for print. This lesser strength Wikisaurus CFI gives a useful way for these words to be included, but isolated, clearly indicated as of lesser acceptance .... provided the contributor is willing to make the effort create a relevant Wikisaurus page, with a /more page. (So not there for just casual passers by).
Please. I am trying to do the right thing. Please don't just ask me to knuckle under to something I see as just plain wrong, devaluing Wiktionary, because you are immovable. I have compromised. Please conside your position. Please contribute to a compromise.--Richardb 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it is worth checking my contributions to Wikisaurus [[3]]. You'll find I do contribute quite a range entries, not just the offensive ones. I also checked your contribution to Wikisaurus for comparison [[4]]. Hard to see where you are "Adding" to Wikisaurus. Isn't it time to find a way to be more positive about it ?--Richardb 03:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't know where the disconnect happened, but I am astounded that you still don't appreciate how offended by all of this, I am.
A) Please don't assume that I have infinite time.
B) Look at Wiktionary:Vote/timeline for a moment. Note very carefully the comment to the right of "2006-11-13 semi-protect Wikisaurus (8-0-1) Approved". That "no activity yet" is for your personal benefit. Your sudden departure, as it concluded was really not appreciated.
For my personal benefit ? Firstly, I was the one who initiated the /more pages as an example of how we can proceed. Secondly several pages have been protected. And I agree with that, and I have voted for it.

No, the relevant pages have not been "cleaned up" yet. Yes, RFDing it was precisely what that vote suggests! (Discussion from the archive now linked/re-linked properly.)

How on earth can you make that leap of logic.
  • The wording of the vote is ‘’Voting on: Making Wikisaurus pages less embarassing to have, by semi-protecting and moving undesirable material to "/more" subpages’’. No mnetion of criteria or RFD.
  • I’ve now checked the discussion which is now available. Not one mention of RFD. The single mention of criteria was by TheDAveRoss. Not one mention of the Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria page.
So, how does that support your assertion. Not at all. My reading of the discussion is that there is a consierable deabte about the vlaue of having a place for open editing of these controversial words.
C) It wasn't "widely accepted"; it was voted on.
It was both accepted and voted on., and acted on. And I supported it and acted on it. But “IT” clearly does not include changing the /criteria page, not RFD’g.
D) That's mighty white of you. Oh wait, it isn't even. You don't think I've complied with policies I didn't particularly like? Think for a moment, please! You can't just pretend the vote never happened, then return after several months picking up where you left off, as if the vote were just imaginary.
Not sure how that relates to point D ?
I returned after several months. I read what I could. I asked a question about what semi-protection was, as it wasn’t defined anywhere that I could find. Once I discovered for myself what semi-protection was, I voted for it. I didn’t ask any question about the critiera as that was not mentioned anywhere on the vote page (and now it turns out it wasn’t in the original discussion either, apart from TDR)
The vote was not imaginary. It happened, and I voted for it. What is imaginary is you stretching it to cover deleting the /criteria page.. Try reading the discussion again.
My reading of the discussion is that there is considerable debate about the value of leaving the /more pages for people to “play” in to some extent.
E) Thank you. I'm confused by the apparent inconsistency, but, um, thank you.
F) 'blue veined yoghurtpump', for one. (That's not slang; that is a creative phrase. What's next, entire paragraphs?) "purple-headed womb-ferret", "flaming staff of vengeance which conquers the sniveling flowers of pink town with medieval war bombs of gooey hysteria", "George W. Bush"? "cannonball the fiddle cove with the pork steeple"?
Sorry, did I support that crap content ? “blue veined yoghurt pump” by any spelling has precisely 1 google hit. I think my lesser strength criteria would see that gone, and probably the rest.
G) You did see my other comment here, right? Wiktionary:Requests for verification#business girl.
Yes. And I must apologise. I misread your meaning. Sorry, It was just my gut reaction to overenthusiastic RFD’ing fo words for prostitute etc. Is there no obligation on the person RFD to at least check Google !

You also voted on the relevant Wiktionary:Votes#Citations namespace vote, which addresses exactly that problem, in a much more direct manner. So why try to reopen a closed door, when a better door is opening up?

Exactly which problem. In Point G I didn’t mention “Citations”.
I do agree with the citations namespace, I voted for it. But, as yet, we don’t have a Citations: namespace. And I can’t find a single example of anyone using a pseudo Citations: namespace either. I’m trying to produce a policy for now, which can be easily amended when we do have the Citations: namespace.
Attempts at using the WP data to generate synonym lists was fruitless. Nearly all of that data generated was for "alternate spellings" (particularly, capitalization issues on Wikipedia.) That doesn't mean I've given up on automatically populating Wikisaurus with real entries; just that I've hit a major setback with that automation.
We really need you (or someone) top find a way to automatically populate the thing, or I reckon the whole Thesaurus idea is doomed. Are there no old Thesaurus’s out of copyright that we can use ? Then this whole thing will be less of an issue. My view it is just ridiculous of a few people who have spat the dummy and said I’m not contributing to WS because there are words in there that offend me ! Bloody feeble excuse. I just wish you personally would concentrate on trying to adding to it, not subtracting from it.
I promise, as much as I can spare the time, to try to do more cleanup, moving stuff to the /more page, and even RFD or RFV’g the unjustified crap entries, such as the ones you mention.
Your closing plea is worded convincingly. (Amusingly, your tone starts off rough, then mellows out as you go?)
I’m not a diplomat. I don’t try sweet talking. I just layout a logical case. And I think I have a ot in common with you in that regard. But, having put my case, I recognise we have to move forward. We both want this thing to work, even if we don’t agree on everything about it. I’m sure we can compromise.

But what would you have me do? Go rewrite a page that I know shouldn't exist? Well, if I do, it'll be after another couple days or a week of cooling off.

But, in practice, you have already done what I am suggesting. The Wikisaurus:prostitute/more page you worked on seems to be exactly what I am trying for. I am only trying to document what you and I havedone, and seems to be working.
And please, let’s both try to have our falling out more in private in future.Thanks.--Richardb 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On Second Thoughts

Just been out taxiing the kids for an hour or so, and had time to mull this over a little. Perhaps we really need to pause for a while, and reflect on how Wikisaurus should develop. I think we have learned some valuable lessons about the problems of putting up a Thesaurus, and we should take some time to work out how to overcome the more fundamental ones before going on.

The problems I see as needing some reflection and action are:-

  • We really need to populate the thing as much as possible, as quickly/automatically as possible, to give us a better starting position.
    • Makes it more useable, so more users, so more attention paid about what is going on in Wikisaurus. At the moment any idiot can edit it and not enough people care to check if the change is valid. (Look what has happened to Wikisaurus:evil as an example) The ratio of idiots to concerned users is probably much higher than in the main part of Wiktionary.
    • The controversial entries will be so much less prominent.
  • We need more people involved. Hopefully the above would help with that.

Actually, that's all the fundamental problems I can think of at the moment :-) The other concerns are after all really secondary in my mind.

What I think perhaps we should do, while we reflect on and take action on these problems, is de-publicise Wikisaurus. That is, remove references to it from the Main Page etc.

And then see if we can muster some effort to find a way of automatically populating the thing.

We could perhaps start with Roget's Thesaurus headwords, then automatically add as synonyms all those words which list the headword as a synonym.
Unless we can find some work we can rightfully copy as a starting point.

--Richardb 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

smell the barn

Hello Connel -- If smell the barn should not have an inflection template, then would it be better to make the POS "Idiom" instead of "Verb"? (Otherwise won't some robot come along sooner or later and stick it in the "Verbs with no inflection template" category?) Wiktionary entries seem to be inconsistent in this respect. I see many idiomatic expressions with a POS of "Verb," with inflections. And I also seem many with a POS of "Idiom". -- WikiPedant 17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are good questions. I would like to see a beer parlour discussion, and subsequent vote on the topic. Many vocal complaints have been raised about using the "Idiom" heading, when the part of speech is clear (as it is, for smell the barn.) My personal preference would be to use {{pos_v}} on the definition line, in conjunction with the "Idiom" heading. But that does not have universal support right now. I agree that there is plenty of inconsistency, right now. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (edit) --Connel MacKenzie 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my jumping in here, but: (1) It's not that it "does not have universal support right now", but rather that you and I seem to be the only active contributors who think that having separate sections for separate parts of speech is artificial and a bad idea (especially since many contributors apparently think that even within a part of speech, separate sections are needed if the word has multiple, sense-triggered inflections); and (2) working within the current system, I think the best approach would be to add a nolinks parameter to {{en-verb}} that would allow us to give all the inflections, like any verb phrase, but without linking to them; and maybe a cat parameter that would let us override the default inclusion of Category:English verbs. —RuakhTALK 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure Hippietrail also agrees (since he created the "pos_" templates to begin with.)  :-)
Jumping in on other people's talk page conversations is something of a tradition, on en.wiktionary, and is quite welcome.
I have not yet found an eloquent way to describe the problem I see. Currently, en.wiktionary enormously over-emphasizes both etymology and POS. Both of those features are linguistic descriptors that in general language use are merely guidelines. Different senses are influenced by other senses with the same spelling, as well as by homophones and homonyms. Pedantry only exists from over-application of such artificial constructs. But saying all of that, I am blissfully deep into "original research." (And I can recognise it as such...so the many opponents to structural changes would have a friggin' field day.) Again, I have not found an eloquent way of describing the problem. That's why I think an extended beer parlour discussion might help. --Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: 2). I recall the reason for not specifying the inflected forms of verb phrases was "simplicity" much moreso than "duplication" or "syncronization." Making the template syntax that much more complicated would pretty certainly meet significant resistance, particularly when the infomation is being hidden. It would make it substantially harder for newcomers. --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
While this is a related topic, it is only indirectly related to the simpler question at hand: when to use {{en-verb}} and when not to use it. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that the 'bot to tag the "Verbs with no inflection" category was ever run a second time, as there was so much controversy following the initial run. That, in and of itself, is a good reason to renew the discussion. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: AutoFormat does seem to be doing this for some parts of speech. I stand corrected. --Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I deal with idiomatic phrasal verbs is to retain the template and create the inflexional entries as redirects to the uninflected idiomatic phrasal verbs. Is this suitable, or does it cause some unforeseen problem? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate forms of idioms get redirects...so yes, it seems reasonable to enter those redirects. But using the template {{en-verb}} is what is in dispute here; my knowledge of the topic is that we are not to use it for any multi-word terms or expressions. I suppose if I don't start looking for a policy reference, Richardb will start screaming about "customs" and "conventions." --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. How are the inflected forms displayed then? Are they just entered in manually and in full (minus templates)? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They normally are not displayed. The inflection of component words are explicitly laid out on each component word's page. --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there enough here, to start a coherent WT:BP discussion, yet? --Connel MacKenzie 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Timing is everything, in comedy and WT:BP.  :-(   --Connel MacKenzie 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly"

Hi, Connel. I realize you just use words like "clearly" to express your self-confidence in this forum, but as you may have noticed, your self-confidence often comes across as subbornness. In this edit, saying, "Clearly, that isn't an alternative spelling" implies that the editors who called it an alternative spelling (including the editor who originally put that heading in the entry and myself for citing it in BP) are deluded or otherwise deficient for not knowing something that you think is obvious.

That is, most people who assume good faith and that their colleagues are at least moderately intelligent would only say "Clearly, that isn't an alternative spelling" in jest or as an insult. I know you better and realize that you meant no offense. I also know you're unlikely to change your style of expression, but you may be interested to know how you could come across to those who don't know you so well. Anyway, cheers. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!! No, of course I meant no offense! Wait, how is it offensive? I used that qualifier only as a turn-of-phrase...all I was saying is that it is clear (but obvisouly an understandable error in that context.) Does the word "clearly" have a pejorative sense, of which I'm unaware? --Connel MacKenzie 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Rod, thank you so much for pointing this out. I honestly had no idea it could be construed that way. --Connel MacKenzie 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. The potential for "clearly" to be construed has to do with the "self-evident" sense of "clearly", i.e. that the claim is obvious to most observers, not just to the speaker. Your "clearly" modified your refutation of my claim, so it can be construed to imply that my claim was not just false, but obviously false, i.e. that I am oblivious to something obvious to most people. In any event, I realize that you meant it's clear to you and not necessarily to the public at large. No offense. Rod (A. Smith) 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
And thanks from the other end — I honestly had no idea that it could be construed as not rude. —RuakhTALK 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I'm stumped as to how to amend our entry for clearly. I just looked for cites on b.g.c. that might explain that connotation to me further, but I'm coming up blank. They all seem to be mild intensifier uses. Maybe I'm reading them wrong? Anyhow, I am thinking of adding a usage note that says something like this: "While the mild intensifier rarely (if ever) carries negative connotations in American English, it almost always is considered inflammatory verbiage in most other dialects." Do you think that sounds about right? (I guess I'll copy this section of my talk page to talk:clearly when done.) No, I didn't intend the pun "talk:clearly" and didn't realize it until I finished typing it.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No usage note is necessary. The tone is not with a word or dialect but the with meaning of the sentence in the context of the surrounding conversation. Literally any word can be used to disparage. Notice, for example, that no word or phrase in the following sentence has a negative tone, but the sentence is nevertheless disparaging:
Everyone but you is smart enough to know that "apple" starts with "a".
Does that help? Rod (A. Smith) 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, that confuses me more. Is there really something wrong with the way I used the word "clearly" back there? User:Ruakh seem to feel there was? --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the subtleties of language! There is something more fundamental at work here than can be described in a dictionary entry (although a really good grammar book may be able to…). In any debate whose purpose is the resolution of conflicting opinions, there are numerous “rules” of convention which dictate how one ought to express himself properly — showing respect in suitable ways, using inclusive speech, and so on — ultimately it comes down to not brusing people’s egos. Now, in the situation of your use of “clearly” as a mild intensifier, you failed to follow one of these “rules”. When refuting an “opponent’s” point, the “rules” are that one ought to mitigate one’s claim — an extremely common way of doing this is by shifting your point from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion — that is, from a flat factual statement like “that isn’t an alternative spelling”, to a statement of opinion like “I don’t believe that it’s an alternative spelling”. Depending upon how many eggshells happen to be scattered over the floor of the forum, you may want to mitigate your statement yet further, such as: “well, from what I can see, I don’t really think that this is an alternative spelling”. Of course, this process of statement mitigation can go too far, to the extent that one seems overly-humble, self-effacing, and even servile: “umm… I’m sorry to contradict you, but I’m afraid that I have to disagree on this point that what we’re talking about is an example of alternative spelling…”. Unfortunately, you did the diametrical opposite, aggravating your statement by the addition of “clearly”. As Rod put it: “Your “clearly” modified your refutation of my claim, so it can be construed to imply that my claim was not just false, but obviously false, i.e. that I am oblivious to something obvious to most people”. The “clearly” here is an implicit criticism — you’re not just rubbishing the claim, you’re ridiculing the claimant for his ignorance in ever having made the claim.
All this can appear a bit daunting, with a staggering web of implications built up which are seemingly indeducible from the objective, semantic meaning denoted by the words used and the grammatical structures employed. Furthermore, bear in mind that a lot of this is culture-dependent. Britons (or at least middle-class Britons and higher) tend to have a more elaborate politesse than most Americans — for this reason, Americans can seem crass and rude to Britons, whilst Britons can seem fussy, touchy, and dissembling to Americans. Those who do not share such totalitarian rules for self-expression may feel stiffled in a culture which has them deeply-ingrained (exemplified by traditional Japanese culture). A lot of people get really pissed off with what they see as disingenuous politeness, prefering blunt, artless honesty (such as, from a “straight-talkin’ Aussie”).
This, Connel, is a culture clash (which, perhaps, would never be expected to take place between two Anglophone nations which are so outwardly similar). However, the good thing here is that people are familiar with your style, and know not to get offended. For the record, I like the fact that you write what you think, with seemingly little regard for any ego involved which, let’s face it, shouldn’t be there in the first place. I hope this helps. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me first say again, Wow!!!
Let me next say, that I believe you. I believe that you have stated the situation honestly and accurately.
Allow me to also say thank you for your candid and open explanation.
Your explanation does make sense. At least now, I can almost comprehend the original complaint. If this truly is a culture-clash issue, I don't know what to say. You "Britons" (is that the polite form? Shouldn't the polite form be "Brit?") have entered an international discussion. I have never made a secret of the fact that my dialect is General American. I've gone a little out of my way to remind people of that fact (despite the international threat to my person that may entail, due to my country's unpopularity.) When discussion anything on en.wiktionary.org, I am not addressing "Britons" (even when directing conversation to them personally on a talk page such as this) but to everyone that is reading - that is - all Anglophones. That includes "straight-talkin' Aussies", Texans, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, South-Afrikaners and Britons. I wish to point out that (without exception) any time I've used a passive voice, I've been slammed, on Wiki conversations. Without any exception at all. (It seems to have been noticeably more pronounced on w:WP:AN/I, but still true here.)
Now with all of that in mind, the majority of top contributors on en.wiktionary (inexplicably) are British. (Sheesh, isn't "Brit" more confortable to say there?) This is despite the fact, that (by an enormous margin, according to alexa.com) almost all of the en.wiktionary.org READERS hail from America. I must remind you that, to my American ear, Canadian-English, Australian-English and South African English all sound like British English. The language differences; the dialectal defects; the grammatical errors all sound like "foreign" AKA "British" English. Aussies absolutely sound British. While I can comprehend that "British" may be a more "delicate" register, it very much throws me off to learn that, compared to GenAm, "Aussie English" is considered a "lower register." To the American ear, British and Aussie are THE SAME.
Now, in the light of recent disputes, I've been speaking with both British and Aussie, thinking of them to be the same register. The mannerisms of both are so foreign that neither can be absorbed as "normal English." Meeting some Aussie "plain-speakin'" aggressiveness, what my American ear interprets, best summed up by my responsive thoughts: "Yo bitch, dem be fightin' words!", in the same breath as encountering British dilettante-speak, how an I even remotely hope to distinguish the two? It is the same (foreign) international community speaking to me in both cases. In all possible interpretations, Aussie and British are the same foreign language, no matter how hard I try to distinguish them. (Most of the time, I don't have enough clues to distinguish them, even if I could.)
Since you enjoy my free-speaking so much, I'll allow myself a little tangent here, and work my way back to the start.
The linguistic "active/passive" distinction is all but eliminated in GenAm. Passive voice is simply never correct (if one would believe MS word, et al.) But is that even what you mean? It sounds more like "aggressive vs. servile". In GenAm, "servile" is only appropriate in captivity (jail) and even then, only when "someone's bitch." The connotation is actually harsher than that; implying that one obviously must actually enjoy being Bubba's sex slave. In business communication, it is completely unacceptable. As I explained above, I have in the past tried using milder "self-effacing" tones on Wikis, with uniformly disastrous results.
Now, at last, coming full circle, I look at the word "clearly." I know that GenAm has no connotation of "self-evident" for the word. I know that it is a fluff-word. I know that it is just "filler" that could have been omitted without changing the meaning, register or connotation (in GenAm.) I know it is equivalent to "Uh," (as a sentence preamble) in spoken English, but doesn't sound as ignorant. I know it doesn't mean "self-evident" nor "obviously" nor "false, and obviously false" nor can it be contrued as such.
I also know that a highly respected associate is trying to beat me over the head with a clue-stick, but I'm just not getting it. (Well, I guess now, I sortof see, maybe.) What you seem to be saying, is that, in British English, in any dispute/diatribe/discource, one must assume mannerisms appropriate of a lowliest-of-low serf addressing the Queen? Hmmm..."queen" probably doesn't mean faggot in this context, right? Nor a chess piece? OK, just checking.
But wait! This is an international discussion. The unwritten British rules of conduct aren't known by all. How can Britons be that arrogant, as to assume that such a rule (that applies only to their dialect) can POSSIBLY be known? It isn't conceivable that unpublished "rules" like that are known (or even recognized!) outside of England.
I've rambled here. Allow me to wrap it all up: if the word "clearly" used the way I used it is offensive in the British dialect of English, we should explain how, why, and in what contexts (within en-UK), it is offensive. I'll try to put more crappy/servile fluff-words into my conversations for a while, but I doubt that can be sustained (after all, there are more people here, than just British.)
Or wait...are you suggesting that we be more aware of each other's dialects? Would identifying primary dialect of each editor help? (I.e. have people change their sigs, to add "(US)" or "(UK)" or "(AU)" etc?) Do people still add themselves to Wiktionary:Wiktionarians, so when in doubt, one can at least check?
This was far too long a ramble. I need to digest the implications of what you said, above. So far, I don't see any way to avoid making this same error, "the next time." --Connel MacKenzie 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (en-us)
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I'm an American (an Israeli by birth, but I came here as an infant and have lived here ever since), and to me the word clearly definitely means obviously, except just a shade weaker. If I say, "I'm sorry, but you're mistaken," I'm speaking forthrightly in the American style. If I say simply, "You're mistaken," I'm being a bit curt. If I say, "Clearly, you're mistaken," I'm being actively rude. This isn't really a feature of the word clearly — I can also say, "Clearly, we can all agree that ____," which is a decent way of trying to bring a discussion back to common ground (assuming that "____" is something everyone actually can agree on) — but a consequence of how arguments work. When disagreeing with someone, it's more polite to add some words of deference, and less polite to add some words of intensification. —RuakhTALK 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The word "clearly" in your example "Clearly, you're mistaken" isn't rude; the "you're mistaken" without qualification is what could be rude. But having been chided by both sides of the pond now, I'll ask around and listen for it with greater interest. When you say "...it's more polite to add some words of deference, and less polite to add some words of intensification" I can nod my head in agreement...I guess. So the problem all along was that I used "clearly" as an intensifier; everybody but me thinks the intensifier is of *MUCH* greater intensity than intended? Clearly, I haven't pinpointed why I think it is such a weak modifier. (Typical intonation, perhaps?) --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Conjuation

Do we have a bot on wiktionary that automatically add's conjuations. Like for example, tomar should have a page made toma. Those pages arent missing, but some are. So is there a process that can be run to catch the rest? —This unsigned comment was added by Bearingbreaker92 (talkcontribs).

No.
I'm (myself, personally) comfortable entering "form-of"s for English entries, but I haven't worked up the audacity to suggest the same should be done for foreign languages. While I can review the list of English terms being entered (before, during and after the pages are generated) I can't do the same for languages I don't know.
Considering I had a similar request not too long ago though...
I'll see if I can generate lists by language, with the pagename to be created and my best guess at what "preload" template to use, and with what parameters. (Confer: template:new en plural bot.)
If I can make something like that work, the next time someone asks me, I'll have a list to point to, for them to check over, before they get fired off by TheCheatBot (or similar.)
If it sounds like I'm about to go off on the wrong tangent, please say so, NOW.
--Connel MacKenzie 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Waitasecond. None of those are wikilinked? --Connel MacKenzie 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. I'd have to use the other tactic of adding sections not pages (or rarely, add pages?) Or is the norm expected to be the addition of new pages? --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. It seems much more difficult than I thought. From the page tomar, you'de want me to generate a Portuguese section in tomamos? (Ahem. The Spanish there is pretty messed up...not using {{form of}} nor including English translation that says "I drink.") --Connel MacKenzie 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Bearingbreaker92 (es-3) probably meant that a bot could add the key non-lemma forms for each Spanish language lemma entry we already have. However, I think English Wiktionary applies stronger CFI requirements to non-English non-lemma forms than other Wiktionaries apply. If that interpretation is accurate, there would rarely be anything for a bot to do since the non-English non-lemma forms would rarely pass our CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Special:Contributions/TheDaveBot, I think the opposite is true. TheDaveRoss' bot would allow him to key in a regular Spanish verb, and it would crank out the inflected forms. He specifically skipped irregulars because he isn't a native Spanish speaker. (Es.wikt: wanted only the irregular inflections, not any of the regular form-of's.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Right. Well, then we have Category:Spanish conjugation templates for the regular verbs (but don't subst them). Rod (A. Smith) 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

competence

Hi - I notice you originally deleted this entry. I've created a new page, but I'm new to this project, so unsure of style, protocols, etc. - would you mind having a look at it? — superbfc — 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted a redirect that was there. Your entry was OK, but I see others have already taken care to format it a little better. --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

freeway

If you wish to dispite a valid sense, tag it with {{rfv-sense}}. Being bold as you were with freeway is simple vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you weren't so eager to revert when this mistake was made, about a year ago. I'd be so glad to know why nobody except me has to provide sources. I'd be so glad to know why everything I write pisses you off while everybody else can write whatever the fuck he wants. The fact that no one corrected that mistake in a year clearly gives proof that nobody gives a fuck about this dictionary wannabe. JackLumber 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think we have RFV? What gives you the impression that any of your recent edits are not controversial, in and of themselves? What makes you think that I should trust you over a very-solidly established, trustworthy contributor? Moreso, why should I, when their definition was clearly marked and obviously reasonable? Why should I trust your edits when they directly conflict with the references in front of me, as well as my own knowledge of the language? --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You have references? Fine, cite them. A very-solidly established, trustworthy contributor? Too bad that even anonymous editors can do whatever they want and add any kind of shit. JackLumber 22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see a minor problem: I was looking at this instead of this. Either way, they are both long-term contributors. But all that is beside the point. If you wish to remove a definition and you think I'm likely to roll it back, don't remove it; tag it with {{rfv-sense}} instead. If the definition isn't obvious vandalism, it is not OK to just be bold removing it (or you have me using the "V" word at you!) --Connel MacKenzie 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My take on it: The original contributor probably intended to say that dual carriageway is a British term that is synonymous with North American freeway, not that the word freeway means "dual carriageway" in Britain (as opposed to what it means in North America and Australia). JackLumber 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. I've tagged it with rfv-sense, and listed it on RFV. I'm going to merge this talk page section back onto my talk page. Would you like me to leave a link to there, from here, or leave this alone? --Connel MacKenzie 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DAYP. BTW, the phrase at-grade crossing, which appears in the UK definition, is more American than British. JackLumber 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you intend this to be addressed personally? Oh, I see. Clearly, this is meant as a lesson on civility. --Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that you are so important to me as to be always on my mind? JackLumber 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"To the American ear, British and Aussie are THE SAME." To your own ear, maybe. JackLumber 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Hi Connel,

commons:User:EncycloPetey is running into some problems transferring images from Wiktionary to Commons. I am not familiar with how Wiktionary has dealt with files, but I know you are at least a little bit familiar with Commons. If you have the time to discuss with him the best way to deal with these images, I would be grateful. :) thankyou --commons:User:pfctdayelise 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. He was working closely with Zelazny (and I thought he had been doing OK) - I'll look into what went down and why. --Connel MacKenzie 14:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

obdurate

Ooh! Nice word. I'll have to remember to add the genus Obdurodon (literally "persistent tooth", a fossil platypus). --EncycloPetey 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading certain author's is now becoming a displeasure. (Currently re-reading an old favorite: "The One Tree" Stephen R. Donaldson.) Some pages have four or five words not found in en.wiktionary.org. I'm gradually leaning towards just keeping a list of words for later, rather than trying to correct them as I encounter them. Sometimes, it takes 10 minutes to read a page (by the time I get through entering a couple words, after verifying that they will pass CFI. feoffment. {Sigh} I guess I'll have to enter that too. Well, if WOTD needs feeder-words, look at my contribs from the last 30 hours or so.  :-)   I'll now grab a scrap of paper and just start jotting them down with page numbers, so I can at least try to enjoy reading it. --Connel MacKenzie 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand completely. What I do now is just keep a little notepad handy. When I start reading a book, I'll write down the title (and author). Then, while reading, if I run across a cool word we probably don't have, or a really good exemplar for a quotation, I'll write down the page number and the word, then continue reading. I don;t bother doing anything until I've gotten to a natural stopping point or have finnished the book. Of course, this process has gone much slower with Fielding's Tom Jones, since it's old enough to be rich in unusual vocabulary. Fielding also seems to be far more enamoured of using adverbs than modern authors. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is harder now than it was a year or two ago. Now, all the prospective words to be added are dodgy and rare. As I've become pickier about what I think Wiktionary should say about words, it gives me significant hesitation for many term. To make it worse still, the literary uses really are very uncommon. Still, just noting them for later does help, at least a little. --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. /the one tree. --Connel MacKenzie 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:wotd#Redoing this

It looks like you never got around to completing the last step. There are still some {{wotd2}} calls lying around. --EncycloPetey 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cleared. --Connel MacKenzie 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I've just put up all the WOTDs for July. --EncycloPetey 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm on the subject of WOTD, would you take a look at my changes to the Archive page. It used to look like this, but now it looks like this. I think it's a major improvement, but you might be able to suggest additions I didn't think of. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I (even though a WOTD insider) always thought that page was frightfully confusing. I think it should explain what "recycled pages" is all about, and link to all the archives and the recycled pages separately, as well. It would also be a convenient place (I think) to link/describe all the relevant templates. And explain how they are supposed to be used.
WOW! Have you been keeping up the alphabetic index manually? --Connel MacKenzie 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's not so hard when you have alphabetizing software. I do pretty much all of my work manually. --EncycloPetey 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Interjection.

I've just added my ha'porth to this old discussion in the right talk page. But I think my argument for including an interjection heading for right is valid. Algrif 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (Well, obviously.)  :-) I have to run right now, and it needs a pretty thoughtful going-over to add it. Perhaps worth mentioning in the Tea Room, if adding it becomes problematic. --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase userpage

Thanks for letting me know. I assumed that it was automatic, like Wikipedia. I didn't even notice that it was lowercase. Thanks again! Hmwith 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Capeverdean Crioulo

Right now, our category for this language is Category:Capeverdean Crioulo language. Other names I find on Wikipedia and Ethnologue are: Kabuverdianu, Caboverdiano, and Cape Verdean Creole. Any opinions on how we should standardize? --EncycloPetey 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. There was a discussion about it on BP or TR - I thought the result was to the one single edit I just made. (There was a batch of about 50 of them, IIRC.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, rei is the only one categorized in the language right now. --EncycloPetey 08:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose I should have caught the category, as well as the language heading. You have this one? --Connel MacKenzie 08:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If there's a decision someone I can look at. I'll browse around. --EncycloPetey 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Good night. I'm stopping at User:Connel_MacKenzie/todo#etymology for now. --Connel MacKenzie 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)