User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2007-9

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

nonsensical "Move to Wiktionary" category by MacKenzieBot

Hi; as far as I can tell, this edit by your bot does not make much sense: it adds a second "Move to Wiktionary" category dated 2005, though the article did not even exist back then. intgr 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, there were quite a few of those. The DynamicPageList extension does not seem to be working correctly (here) which created a very bad feeder list for the category addition. The task was to add the category to any un-categorized page in the Transwiki namespace. I'm doing some refreshes on that page now, and the results keep changing. When it stabilizes, I'll remove the redundant category. --Connel MacKenzie 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WOTD September

No, just extremely busy the past three weeks. I've barely done any work on Wiktionary in that time. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want someone else to take it over for the month? --Connel MacKenzie 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ennakko/ennakkoa

Yep. It was an error in the first place. My intention was to write an article on ennakko, which is now complete. Hekaheka 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and "projectlinks"

Did you know that when you replace {{wikipedia}} with {{projectlinks|wikipedia}} you are replacing one 5-line template with two templates that include 550 lines of wikitext and ~1500 parser function calls? Robert Ullmann 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not know that. I had assumed that the simplified results were, in fact simpler. What do you propose to simplify it? Subst: or substall:? --Connel MacKenzie 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It calls the /link template 10 times (needed or not of course), and then that has a huge #switch statement, with lots of conditionals ... it should just be like {{pedialite}}, i.e. you write the * lines yourself, and on each line use something like {{sister|w|cat}} or whatever. Parameter 2 is the project (easy to allow aliases), and then the other things. Then take all the code in {projectlinks} apart and put it back together ;-).
On the other hand, you wouldn't be so annoyed with the boxes if you would turn off the RHS [edit] links in prefs and use right-click-on-header. Why do we have [edit] links on headers > 2 anyway? They are just ugly, useless to users of the wikt (which we would hope will far outnumber editors!). It makes sense for the 'pedia where there is a bunch of text in each section, not so much here? Robert Ullmann 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert, could you comment on {{sister}}? (The intent is to use it together with {{pedialite}}.) DAVilla 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Wasn't that supposed to redirect to {{projectlinks}}? --Connel MacKenzie 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. The floating boxes are enormously nonstandard. Any time an image is included, the floating boxes cause problems. As to turning of section editing, that is crazy. Wiktionary edits are overwhelmingly to sections. As translator membership increases, that steadily is skewing towards greater section editing, not less. With any of Hippietrail's extensions from wiktionarydev, the section editing becomes even still more important. Turning off the [edit] links for newbies would be catastrophic. I can't believe you seriously suggested that.
"Enormously non-standard"? By what standard? HTML? Bog-standard. WM? Bog-standard. You just don't like them because you are constantly fighting them. They work fine if they are where they should be: immediately under the applicable language header, and they will format very nicely (yes, there are a couple of broken ones, so what? we fix them). Can you please try something? Go into preferences, turn OFF the edit links, turn ON the right-click on header edits, and use that for a while; at least 2 weeks. Then you'll see the images and boxes without the extraordinarily UGLY string of [edit]'s down the RHS of the page. Of course section editing is important. Why should I have to mouse over to the extreme right and pick one of a string of IDENTICAL links by position, when all I have to do is click on the header?
I have tried that; yes I know precisely how that functions when it is turned off. It is still stupid to suggest that it should be turned off by default. We have decades to go, before the focus shifts entirely from editing to reading. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bog-standard, my ass. No, look at how a page renders in other skins. Look how it renders on derivative sites. Look how syntactically incorrect the things are; the only time they are not disruptive is when they are the only "floaty-thing" on a page, above the first heading when an article has four or more section headings. That's a lot of limitations. Look at how much trouble "floats" cause whenever they are used. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we think for a minute about the readers, who want to use a dictionary, and want a good presentation with stuff like references to the 'pedia right up top where they will notice? And not an incredibly ugly string of [Edit] all the way down the page. We are building this for users aren't we?
IMO, the logged-out users should see only the edit tab at the top of the page, or maybe on the language sections. Logged in, they should get right-click by default, or be able to turn on the ugly little [Edit] links. And then can whinge that it breaks the standard HTML float right function (or vice versa). Robert Ullmann 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I haven't looked at projectlinks for efficiency at all yet. The larger problem that is does address is unifying the dozens of "floaty-box-things" that all do it differently, for different reasons and all suck ass. Once all the boxes are gone, we can look at the (dubious) performance impact of projectlinks. Yes, it seems likely there are major enhancements that could be done to it...but I have to ask why you didn't mention it months ago, on WT:GP or during that VOTE? --Connel MacKenzie 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
DAVilla, {{sister}} as it is now should be RFDO'd. --Connel MacKenzie 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And not improved? It assumes a disambiguation page because I had preferred {{pedialite}} for actual articles, but with a few changes in wording it could do essentially what Robert suggested: {{sister|pedia=cat}}.
No, not improved: deleted. There is no reason to cause further variation in how these are dealt with. --Connel MacKenzie 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor is there any reason to eliminate possibilities when we don't have an acceptable format for sister project links other than wikipedia itself, and barely that. DAVilla 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point. However, I think {{projectlinks}} does meet all the needs mentioned to date. Quickly tossing together an alternate seems rather suspicious, particularly when that alternate re-establishes the bad formatting we all wish to see removed. --Connel MacKenzie 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert, the developers have told us many times not to worry about performance. If we need something, we should do it, and if it's truly a problem, we don't need to prevent it policy-wise, since the developers will prevent it technically. That's what they are here for. Dmcdevit·t 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Will {{t}} work, even though there are limits on the total number of templates allowed? --15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reconfirm vote

Since you voted prematurely, it would be best to reconfirm your opposition to brand names. DAVilla 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was planning on revisiting it before the vote ended...but there was absolutely no convenient place to register the complaint (talk page overrun by minutia of specific stuff that missed the boat entirely.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


carpe noctem

Hi Connel, I’ve collected twenty-three citations of carpe noctem (meaning “seize the night!”) used in English. Nineteen italicise or enclose within quotation marks the clearly Latinate phrase, but there are five examples where this is not done (one source italicises it on page 121 of the book, but does not apply any special formatting to it ten pages later, on page 131). All the citations are from printed books. Since we have carpe diem listed as an English phrase, would you be OK with my adding an English entry for carpe noctem? I’d like to hammer out a policy on how we label these kinds of highly unnaturalised borrowing ASAP (I was going to start a conversation with you about it after I returned from holiday, but I was blocked too soon for that), but in the meantime the large number of citations for this phrase is making my user page too large. I sent you a reply e-mail a while ago which asked you a number of questions — should I expect a reply? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Thank you for asking.
  2. I would/will object, but I doubt my objections will stand against five citations. I would use it, perhaps, to predictably harp on again, on my soapbox of "CFI is broken." Everyone is annoyed at hearing me go on about that, but not quite annoyed enough yet, to modify CFI to require fifteen citations for such things...nor to impose comparative measures (i.e. since it is usually used in italics, the handful of otherwise usable quotes should be treated as errors.)
  3. For comparison, how many cites (approximately) are available for carpe diem?
  4. I think carpe diem#English should be labeled {{idiom|commonly borrowed from Latin}}, perhaps.
  5. Yes, you should expect a reply (or several) to your e-mail. I did receive it, but it was quite verbose (as it needs to be.) I'd like to reply in segments. But so far, I've been wrapped up with issues outside of Wiktionary.
    --Connel MacKenzie 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. You are welcome. You’ve honoured my objections before, and, as I asked, did not take advantage of my absence to take actions that I would have opposed. One good turn deserve another, and all that.
  2. OK, I’ll not add it then. I’ll move my citations to a sub-page if the size problem becomes too big an issue.
  3. Google Book Searching for “carpe diem” and “carpe noctem” yields a ratio of "carpe+diem"&btnG=Search+Books 1,184:"carpe+noctem"&btnG=Search+Books 83 — about 14¼:1. If we apply the same ratio of hits:cites I got for carpe noctem to carpe diem — 3⅗:1 — that means that there should be about 328 cites for carpe diem. If we further apply the ratio of “italicised or quoted”:“not specially formatted” instances of use I got for carpe noctem to the hypothetical 328 cites for carpe diem — 4⅗:1 — that means that there should be about 71 cites for carpe diem which use no special formatting. That’s the mathematical theory anyhow. I really wouldn’t rely on it though. It’s probably safe to bet that there are a lot more cites for carpe diem than there are for carpe noctem, though.
  4. What about {{idiom|unnaturalised Latin}}, which more clearly makes your point?
  5. No problem; take your time. I can hardly expect a speedy reply after the delay I showed in replying to you.
    † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: #3: Thank you - that numerical exercise (comparing carpe diem vs. carpe noctem) was precisely what I was asking for. Having looked at your analysis, (pardon me for being very abstract and candid here) I would rate my "gut instinct as a native GenAm speaker" at about 25. That is, any term that could result in about 25 "usable, unitalicized" cites would pass probably without any objection at all. 3 to 24 cites, and I set up my soapbox again.  :-)  (I.e. "CFI is broken/the sky is falling/CFI is broken!") In that regard, I think the OED's "15" is too low. But perhaps their definition of "usable" simply does not work for me. (Particularly, as an American English speaker.)
I don't think {{idiom|unnaturalised Latin}} is particularly clear. (We're talking about carpe diem, not carpe noctem, right?) Perhaps {{idiom|Latin borrowing}}?
On a rather different note, carpe diem currently doesn't convey much of the idiomatic sense: "seize the opportunity/grab the brass ring." (In fact, it doesn't even mention it!) How did the citations for carpe noctem use that term? Synonymously? Or did it have a strong connotation for illicit activity (i.e. robbery, burglary, murder etc.,) or perhaps evil political activity (a coup d'etat, an overthrow, assassination etc.?)
Oh no...coup d'etat (the correct/normal English spelling) isn't split out from coup d'état (the correct French spelling) yet!
Please note: I think we most certainly should have carpe noctem#Latin. If it is modern or faux-Latin, it should be marked as such, but certainly a ==Latin== section of some sort is useful.
--Connel MacKenzie 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr: note that by a previous vote, you can create a Citations:carpe noctem to house these citations until such time as the entry is created in some form. —RuakhTALK 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to restart my reply. Sorry to keep you waiting. --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Use Function_library(miracle);
  • Reply sent. --Connel MacKenzie 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mechanics of WT:PREFS and User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js

I don't see where settings selected in WT:PREFS (through User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js) are written. Presumably, there's a block of DHTML that gets written out, but where? The reason I ask is that I don't see any effect from selecting the new checkboxes created by these changes, so I'd like to see the output of the document.write() statements. Did I miss a step or does MediaWiki:Common.css override the dynamic styles? Rod (A. Smith) 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to refresh the page after editing it. (IE: Ctrl-F5, FF: Ctrl-R.) It WorksForMe...well done. --Connel MacKenzie 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It is called from MediaWiki:Monobook.js somewhere as an INCLUDE. --Connel MacKenzie 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps. I see now that the changes are taking effect, but unlike Special:Mypage/monobook.css, styles written from MediaWiki:Monobook.js do not override (in the css sense) styles from MediaWiki:Common.css. I'll dig further in the days to come. Rod (A. Smith) 07:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd sooner suspect it was a missing <CR><LF>s at the end of some of my earlier writes or other bone-headed-I-don't-have-a-clue-what-I'm-doing-in-CSS errors I've made. --Connel MacKenzie 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not you. In CSS, whitespace is whitespace. It seems to be the order of CSS includes. I'll sleep on it. Rod (A. Smith) 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So its the sort of thing that has to be added not by Common.css, but WT:PREFS either way? --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to revert my last edits to custom.js if the renumbering is causing any problems. Is that the case? Rod (A. Smith) 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

header "Gender forms"

Should be Declension. Removing it entirely means that someone has to go add the proper header back in on every one of those entries manually. Robert Ullmann 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you go back and add the ====Declension==== header to all of them, or should I add the alias to AF:headers and roll back all your changes; let it fix them? Robert Ullmann 09:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixing all of them presently. Robert Ullmann 10:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

…of the manse

I think that I might have arrived at a solution acceptable to both of us in the Beer parlour — do you care to pass comment, stating whether you agree or not? BTW, nice work with Appendix:European Computer Science Dictionary. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Header Postposition

Hi, Connell

You added an rfc-header -tag to the part-of-speech header "postposition" in the article aikana. Wikipedia currently lists 49 Finnish postpositions (some of them are rather verb forms, but I will fix them), and I don't know how many in other languages. They are used like prepositions, but they are coming after the word they define instead of being placed before it. I wonder what they should be called, if postposition is not good. Prepositions they are not, and hardly adverbs either. Hekaheka 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were right with this one. Aikana is not regarded a postposition, it is just a noun form used postpositionally. Let me reformulate: is Postposition OK in principle as a part-of-speech header? The reason for asking this is that I have seen rfc-header -tags on this header before, not necessarily placed by you. Hekaheka 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the "rfc-header" not because of any advanced knowledge of Finnish, but because that heading, AFAIK is not accepted. It obviously isn't one of the eight English parts of speech. And I do not recall any discussion explaining why such an exception would be needed for Finnish...that is, why it can't be described in English terminology. In English, a preposition is a "connecting word" - it does not specify (before or after) placement of. --Connel MacKenzie 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot run

Thanks for the note. I had looked at WT:BOT before doing the replacements and saw this sentence:

If you think you have a task likely to be done much more easily by a bot, try using the python wikipediabot under your own account and see if it helps.

I guess I did a little too much... I'll create a bot account and ask for approval if I think it's expedient to use a bot in the future. Mike Dillon 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy with a pretty dodgy username

Themthingswhatgirlswear, don't you think that's an inappropriate name? And is there a proper place to report usernames that violate policy? Thanks. Cheers, JetLover 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

VolkovBot

Thanks for congratulations :) But the bot account still remains blocked :( I asked SemperBlotto to unblock it but he seems to be away right now. Can you please resolve the issue? Thank you! --Volkov 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect, SB will be online (as usual) in the next 5-15 minutes. Any other time of day, I would, but since he should be here shortly, I'd rather wait. (No, I see no reason the block is still in effect.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll wait, no problem. --Volkov 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Et voila! --Connel MacKenzie 07:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
C'est merveilleux :) --Volkov 07:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Connel. I replied to you on my talk page. --Neskaya talk 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) & Again, too. --Neskaya talk 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Begging request :)

[Copied over from Dvortygirl's talk]

Hi Dvortygirl. My name is Alison - you may know me from en.wikipedia, but I'm also sysop on ga.wikti and gd.wikti. Really sorry I missed your talk in Palo Alto last week but the day job here in Cupertino had me tied up.

Anyways, this is a begging request :) I was just wondering if you'd like to run your bot over on ga.wikt (and to a lesser extent, gd.wikt). I'm currently trying to revive both wiktionaries. ga.wikt was largely dead until last month, but now it's thriving again and editors are arriving to contribute. gd.wikt is still languishing, but I'll get to it. I'm a reasonably fluent Irish speaker and would gladly help on any localisation that needs doing. HermesBot is already up and running over there. Thanks! - Ali-oops 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Connel. Just copying you on this one, too. I'd be honoured if you guys could get your bot(s) to work the Irish Language wiktionary, too. We need all the help we can get right now. Thanks! - Ali-oops 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Erm, waitasec, what am I getting myself into, now?
I'm conducting an experiment now with a half-dozen Hebrew audio files. So far, Unicode is an absolute nightmare. But that's OK, as long as I never sleep again.  :-)
As Dvortygirl can attest, many of my assumptions when writing Dvortybot components were simply wrong. It is buggy (e.g. blank lines strewn about, misses, etc.) That said, I think experimenting with uploading and linking on ga.wikt: would probably be fun...if nothing else, it will expose a lot of bugs in my current code. We'll also learn a lot about how ===Pronunciation=== sections are formatted on other projects. (Has any project come up with a decent way of doing it yet?) By merit of thousands of .ogg files uploaded at a time, Dvortybot may end up setting a formatting standard that we don't necessarily want.
Have you started recording with Shtooka yet? Or are you just doing onsie-twosies with Audacity? Have you started uploading them to Commons via commons:COM:FUS? (For Dvorty, Neskaya et al., I let Commons:User:Dvortybot upload the files...but I am not convinced that was the best decision.)
--Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Hi again. Thank you so much for considering us :) Right now, I've only done some minor work with Audacity on the Mac here and exported ogg files. More as an experiment really, but hopefully things will take off. "Pronounciation", BTW, is "Fuaimniú" in Irish. Given our alphabet being a subset of the standard Latin one plus a few vowel-only diacriticals, we shouldn't have any unicode issues. We can work with you both on formatting issues, translation,e tc. Thanks for the shtooka tip, too - I'll look into that. If you guys want to have a play around, come on over and set up accounts (and on gd.wikt if you like, but that's dormant. One at a time! :) ). We've no 'crat but I'll sort out your bot bits over on meta so you don't have to bother. We've already got the usual bot templates translated, etc and now have a massive two active sysops, should things go awry! - Ali-oops 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: all my development activities stop for a day or so, with each XML dump...which is starting in a few minutes. --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course! :) - Ali-oops 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty-please? :) We just got BotMultichill working yesterday, which made quite a difference - Alison 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I wish this section had a different title. Anyhow, yes, I'd better get on to those Hebrew files then. Thanks for the reminder. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
When you get them done, let me know. I have MORE for you. --Neskaya talk 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) - Alison 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

September WOTD

I think I'm not going to have the time to do WOTD this month after all. There are plenty of good nominations, so if you could fill in the rest of August I would be grateful. I have run into many unforseen real-life complications that have kept me away from Wiktionary the past few weeks. Hopefully, things will settle down again within the next couple of weeks, but be prepared to handle the fist two weeks of October if I haven't done so by the 26th. --EncycloPetey 01:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got the cross-wise links from recycled to archive sufficiently, so that I can plunk these in now. I see you edited tonights WOTD, with a term with no audio. You want me to take it over for a couple weeks or not? I don't know what the outside issues you mention are, but they sound pretty devastating. I hope things get better for you soon. --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy smack, the audio is a PITA! No wonder everyone wants it fully automated! --Connel MacKenzie 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) NB: A "Windows update" had destroyed my previously working Shtooka/Audacity installs. GIYF? Well, eventually, I just re-downloaded the Realtek AC97 drivers, rebooted, uninstalled, rebooted, installed, rebooted again, and the microphone is now recognized again...about 10 hours later, that is. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WOTD considerations

Some information about tasks that need to be done for each WOTD:

  • verify that the word has audio
  • check that it has all needed POS headers sections!
  • make sure it has example sentences and translation table stubs
  • it should not be marked as RFV/RFC/RFD
  • it should not be gaming terminology, obscene, eponymous nor trademarked
  • make sure it isn't in a WOTD archive of m-w.com, dict.com (or in ours)
  • the selection of WOTDs should vary across POS over a few days
  • the selection of WOTDs should vary across the alphabet over a given month
  • the word should not be too long or too short

Candidates come from WT:FWC.

(Recap of conversation with Connel on IRC) ArielGlenn 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ty --Connel MacKenzie 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OBSERVATIONS: Compiling a list of about 35 potential candidate words from WT:FWC et al., for the last two weeks of September took about 4 hours. With Dvortygirl's computers incapable of recording audio right now, Neskaya's computers incapable of recording audio right now and Windows Update pooching my crotchety old Windows Laptop, getting one word recorded took several days. Cleaning up individual words for WOTD present-ability, takes 30 to 90 minutes (including sufficient verification, as well as general cleanup) plus a couple minutes to do the actual WOTD's template entry. I haven't yet started double-checking the page protections (entries are supposed to be edit-able by everyone, while the main-page template is supposed to be semi-protected so only registered users can edit it.) Having loaded Main Page every day for a few days now, I'm very bored by how our main page looks. We need someone with an eye for design to take another shot at overhauling it, despite the numerous failed attempts in the past. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

about Hanja

Conversation moved to Wiktionary talk:About Korean#Hanja entries. Rod (A. Smith) 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Angie Y.

Hello, Connel. I'd just like to say that I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Angie has Asperger's syndrome. And this kind of stuff can be hard to deal with. She can have this kind of trouble on Wikipedia too, and I know that Asperger's can be difficult to deal with. So her behavior is explainable. Cheers, JetLover 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, people who claim they need special dispensation due to a medical condition are not here with clear intentions. If Angie makes good contributions, she certainly welcome here. But if she simply resubmits invalid entries again, she'll get a normal short term block. --Connel MacKenzie 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disk space for downloading Project Gutenberg

At User:Connel MacKenzie/Gutenberg you say you downloaded all of Project Gutenberg, How? How big was it (seeing as you say you needed a new hard drive to do it). RJFJR 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once every other day, I do this:
rsync -arvHS -W --size-only --partial --exclude=*.spx --exclude=*.m4b --exclude=*.zip --exclude=*.htm --exclude=*.gif --exclude=*.jpg --exclude=*.mp3 --exclude=*.ogg --exclude=*.iso* --exclude=*.png --exclude=*.rar --exclude=*.ISO --exclude=*.mid --exclude=*.sib --exclude=*.pdf --exclude=*.gz --exclude=GUTINDEX.* --exclude=*.eps --exclude=*.dcs ftp@ftp.ibiblio.org::gutenberg ~/gutenberg/
That leaves me with about ~26 GB of raw text data (total, when I checked just now.) Reading it all into my database, counting words, counting collocations, etc., works out to another 2.5 GB or so. Originally, before I excluded all the various "other" media and zip files on Project Gutenberg, it was quite a lot of space. Since then, I've gotten pretty good at clearing out non-text data from Project Gutenberg. The space on that hard drive I freed up by doing so, now holds my archive copies of en.wikt XML dumps from download.wikimedia.org and a backup of another system. (The drive is, once again, >90% full.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2L

Satisfied? Verified? Mortified? bd2412 T 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy moley. --Connel MacKenzie 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

honkey, hunky

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

Links: honky, honkey, honkie, hunky, hunkey, hunkie, hunky-dory, hunky dory, honky-tonk, honky tonk, talk:honky, talk:honkey, talk:honkie, talk:hunky, talk:hunkey, talk:hunkie, talk:hunky-dory, talk:hunky dory, talk:honky-tonk, talk:honky tonk,
When it actually is limited to AAVE, we tag it as AAVE. Those aren't limited to AAVE (nor even specific to AAVE, nor even originated from AAVE.) As very mild slurs, honky/honkey are very common, but in no way restricted to AAVE.
That series of entries sees periodic racist vandalism. Tagging something "ebonics" is almost always wrong. But AAVE is only correct when it is correct. "Hunky" is the word used in the phrase "hunky-dory" meaning A-OK. "Honky" is the (even milder) synonym of "whitey." "Honkey" is an alternate spelling of "honky" (or perhaps even a misspelling.) But none of those are specific to, or limited to AAVE.
You are correct that I should probably have explained why I removed that (vandalism?) from hunky on its talk page. But that series of entries has enough noise, that I didn't think to do so. Tagging hunky (from "hunky-dory") as "ebonics" is just wrong, and looked like vandalism at first glance.
Now, in some dialects, it is conceivable that "hunky"/"hunkey" is an alternate spelling of "honky." Conceivable, but not likely. So, if there is a dialect where that is true, it should be indicated. But the tag "ebonics" should be avoided at all times, in deference to "AAVE." The etymonline reference contradicts (antedates) itself, and surely is just wrong. Confer http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hunky and oddly, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bohunk (which is the apparent source of the "Hungarian" thing, from slang used from the 1890s up until 1905?) (but note it is for a completely different word.)
Having checked closer now, it seems we are missing the secondary sense "very muscular" for hunk / hunky / hunkey / hunkie. The primary sense is (obviously?) "A-OK," from hunky-dory. If a reliable source for it being an alteration or misspelling of "honky" can be found, then that should be listed as a separate slang sense. But even then, tagging it AAVE would be questionable.
I agree that the whole series is a mess right now. Here are some other references I checked:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ! [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
I am interested to hear, how you think this series should be cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I tried to tidy them up a bit the last time (few months back) but found it hard having little or no understanding of dialects within the US English. The above seems to pretty much sum it up for these entries. I'll keep away from the ebonics label - its probably quite offensive I would have thought! Do we need to RFD it? AAVE seems a more impartial term without the derogatory overtones that ebonics implies. Regards --Williamsayers79 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that "AAVE" doesn't have "derogatory overtones" - it just has fewer than "ebonics." I know that I was aghast, the first time I saw "AAVE" used as linguistic terminology. ("How dare they...") But it seems to be gaining momentum in the linguistic world. The benefits of describing dialects (and sub-dialects) outweigh the inherent offensiveness of the linguistic tag, I guess. (To the hard-core linguist, anyhow.) I haven't thought of anything better, myself, but I don't like the "AAVE" tag. On one hand, the term "AAVE" exaggerates the racial strife in the US; on the other, it under-emphasizes it. Since the underlying language differences are inherently racist (Black vs. White or White vs. Black or Black vs. Latino or...) to begin with, it is obviously a very touchy subject to address, no matter what color your skin is. Using this type of blanket generalization is kindof like rubbing salt into an open wound. Yet, not even recognizing the dialects would be worse, as it would deny the obvious identity conveyed when spoken in these dialects, while at the same time, would ignore their tremendous prevalence. At the other extreme, simply tagging any term with racial connotations as "AAVE" (regardless of current use) is equally wrong. I maintain that "honky" is in no way restricted to AAVE, but I haven't a clue as to how to validate that observation.
AFAIK, periodic sweeps were done to change ''ebonics'' to ''AAVE'' several times, before this year's change to put them into their own context tags (i.e. {{ebonics}}.) Normal vandalism has allowed it to creep back in, so when the context tags were created en-masse, no one noticed. Any uses found of "ebonics" (instead of "AAVE") should be regarded as "pointlessly offensive" and corrected. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a slight correction: honky most certainly did originate in Black American slang, even if it is no longer limited to that. This is how the OED labels it, and see also w:Honky for corroboration of its supposed origins. Widsith 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Yes, honky may have originated from it, but is in no way restricted to it now. But hunky (of hunky-dory) did not. I'm unsure, really, where honkey and honkie came from...just spelling errors? Good clarification, Widsith. So, any thoughts on how to clear up this series of entries? --Connel MacKenzie 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Missing-gloss

What is the point of this? Category:Translation table header lacks gloss already exists (which you know, you put this cat in it). The trans-top template will generate the cat automatically if the gloss is missing. Robert Ullmann 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what, in New York, would be called a fuck up (2.) My mistake there was four-fold...first, adding the category within my Javascript (not realizing it was already added to the correct category if a gloss was missing,) next, editing the first few by hand to achieve the same result, next not going back and fixing that JS, next was not going back to fix the JS a day or two later when I found the "correct" category (instead, filling out the new category to be a sub-category.) For some reason, I guess I thought DAVilla was adamant that he wanted new occurrences to be in a "different" category.
That said, having the {{trans-top}} explicitly identifying where the error is seems possibly helpful. So I'll change the JS to point to C:TTHLG, then tomorrow run replace.py. Assuming, of course, that only translation tables should have glosses entered in the template... --Connel MacKenzie 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you put a non-blank parameter in the trans-top call, it suppresses the default "Translations" gloss, which should be there. If it is a cat, the cat will get moved to the end-of-section, and duplicates removed. Better to just omit the parameter and let the template do its thing?
DAVilla wasn't objecting to things getting added to the cat, only to AF doing it, since it would flood the cat with 12,000+ entries ... Robert Ullmann 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this please. AF doesn't rip categories out of templates parameters, does it? Having the error identified exactly where the error occurs helps me pinpoint where the correction is needed (when editing manually.) More often than not, when I use this JS, I do fill in the gloss rather than let the category get added. When I don't correct it immediately, it is due to an ambiguous TT situation - one where the definitions given seem to be incorrectly split, so splitting the TT to match would not only be wrong, it would be, well, wrong.
What would you suggest instead? Something like {{trans-top|err=Translation table heading missing gloss}}? --Connel MacKenzie 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
{{trans-top}} let the template do its thing. The error is anywhere trans-top doesn't have a parameter eh? Categories should never appear explicitly as template parameters. Robert Ullmann 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You could of course use "err=missing gloss" or something, the template doesn't have an "err" parameter, so {1} is not specified, and it will add the cat. Might confuse someone else though. Robert Ullmann 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, when the JS does it, it appears as a DIFF immediately, so it is less likely to be saved that way (except in the ambiguous cases mentioned above.) I have found it very helpful, these first couple days. (And very, very few so far have been saved with it, right?) --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Would changing template talk:trans-top help, to acknowledge the "err=" parameter? Perhaps "fixme="? --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple observations

I'm not sure I realized this before, but there are a couple fundamental differences between our approaches (that is, reformat.js vs. User:AutoFormat.) Both accomplish essentially the same task; cleaning up bogus additions. The AF approach, however, is fully automated. The reformat approach demands human attention for each edit.

My concern early on, for AF, was that it removed (too much) the human review element that the automation opponents had (in 2005) so militantly insisted on.

I'm come to realize now though, that my own thoughts on it are mostly just jealousy. (That is, I think the automation opponents were wrong to begin with.) But I react sometimes negatively to AF for two reasons: 1) jealousy (that is, line-by-line parsing in JS is annoyingly painful, due to the fact that JS regex works neither consistently nor correctly for line-breaks from browser to browser,) and 2) your source code is not public (so I can't even convert what you've done to JS, so that it can be turned on by default for everyone. If everyone saw the preview of what was wrong, when they went to [save page], we'd all have an enormously smaller amount of cleanup to do.)

Javascript is not my favorite language, but it does seem to be the appropriate choice for Wiktionary. And my normal programming style is probably too obtuse for most people to comprehend (let alone edit and extend.) But when I say "jealous" above, I do mean only this: your entry parser seems to be such an obvious, wonderful starting point, I'm upset at myself for never having taken the time to write it out properly (in JS or MUMPS.)

There was a request, not too long ago, for "Wiktionary Wizards" - code snippets that would, for example, allow someone to add a Swahili translation to an entry. With the entry completely parsed out (in Java or Javascript) tacking on such a wizard would be trivial.

Anyway, it is (for me) quite an insight, that I've identified why I sometimes have negative reactions toward AF. Please take my comments toward AF with a grain of salt. I do value the significant progress from AF, but still have reservations about it (the fully-automated approach) that have been ingrained upon me from the militant anti-automation faction that was so prevalent in 2004/2005. (That faction is still alive and well on Wiktionary, as you well know. Now it is somewhat mollified, from a couple years of me being on the front line, taking abuse for the most trivial corrections all along, while addressing the occasional [rare] valid concern. These days though, even Stephen seems to have built up a significant following of fuck - all - heading - conventions - let's - just - do - it - however - the - fuck - we - want - so - no - one - can - ever - parse - an - entry - correctly - nor - ever - reuse - any - Wiktionary - data - for - anything - anywhere - else advocates. Combined with other (clueless but eloquent) political opponents I've garnered like Ruakh, it is getting worse, not better. I don't think they realize that if shit isn't cleaned up semi-manually by me, it will eventually be cleaned up automatically by AF, or worse, something similar but less thorough, to it. Frankly, I'm tired of being their punching bag. Seeking "common ground" has proven fruitless, instead, has fed their trolls.)

For now, I've got to get into the office...no more heady pie-in-the-sky thoughts from me, for right now. Writing "Wiktionary Wizard" code snippets can wait for another day. --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the automation/human factor (About a year ago, I read through all of the BP archive, taking many notes ;-) It is good that things have shifted; perhaps seeing how much drudgery could be replaced and how much care can be taken has helped.
I know. Your good will is enough to make me reconsider the "Connel" flag issue (though I still think you are inflating just how much code was added...I see only a couple easy lines so far.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
On headers: we do need a number of headers that aren't that useful for English (and should therefore be checked, I should have a FL flag in the column where NS is ...) Things like "Postposition" which are absolutely required for some languages, but not supposed to occur in English. (notwithstanding notwithstanding). My concern is that there be a known, bounded set; not that it should be hard to added things that are needed.
I still like my "time travel" requirement better. But I suppose it can't be helped. (NB: I disagree about notwithstanding.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
On code: you'll find it dreadfully hard to do in Javascript what is easy in Python; the regex and string handling and dictionary structure in Python make it a dream to do this sort of thing.
Quite. (Or rather, yes, I did.) But Python does run within an HTML page. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In any case, go look: User:AutoFormat/code. Have fun. Robert Ullmann 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, have been for the last 1/2 hr or so. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You realize that Special:Recentchanges has a &from=20070921011652 timestamp parameter you can use, right? --Connel MacKenzie 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it needs to catch entries that have been seen before, but are now patrolled. No way of knowing how far back to go, and this is the most common case when the editor != sysop. Robert Ullmann 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You realize &limit goes up to 5000 (not 500) right? &days=30... --Connel MacKenzie 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the last 500 are somehow cached; reading more takes a lot longer, while <= 500 is fairly quick. I had code to read 5000 every nth time, but it would sometimes take a very long time, and find little. Robert Ullmann 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's always http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=&page= too. --Connel MacKenzie 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think you may have been the one to point out to me (years ago?) that it went up to 5000. Yes, the squids cache the Special:RC pages...so you probably aren't the only one pulling them 500 at a time, much of the time.
The Python dictionaries are very similar to the MUMPS native hierarchal datatypes (the normal variable arrays in MUMPS.) Looking at your code is depressing, when thinking about implementing sections of it, in Javascript. But in MUMPS, yes, trivial. If I can decipher your regexps, I'll be home free. Erm, except that I'd only accomplish the same thing you do now.  :-(
One thing that is at least a little inspirational...the harvesting you do from Special:Recentchanges is probably a good way to do the more advanced logic for marking entries as patrolled. I.e., an anon or new account creates an entry, then SemperBlotto comes along and rewrites it...therefore the anon edit should be marked as patrolled (but currently is not.) --Connel MacKenzie 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:11415

Spacebirdy,

The request seems like it may be too confusing for the devs to implement. The "sectioning" of a page is done by the ==headings== in a pretty established manner. I'm waiting now to hear what the response is on irc://irc.freenode.net/mediawiki.

It is weird, giving examples for it for the English Wiktionary, when it hasn't even been discussed on en.wikt:, nor is likely to be immediately adopted by the en.wikt: community. Even though it will probably take a long time, it will be nice when the en.wikt: layout matches (generally, at least) the layout of all other Wiktionaries. Something to hope for, anyhow.

--Connel MacKenzie 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:84.28.2.108

That's me but I didn't know I've got an account on this wiki. I'm not using my bot here, I do everything myself. I only use my bot at li.wiktionary.org. --Ooswesthoesbes 08:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Appendix:U.S. Navy slang

Thank you for the history-merge to finally finish the transwiki. I restored the more current text because people had not stopped editing the Wikipedia page when it was put in the transwiki log. I'm still working on the link fixes but this page has a lot of clean-up still needed. Rossami 05:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for taking it on! --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

override

Feel free to remove the incorrect "overrode" pp. I used is as an example for multiple pps but it sounded wrong so I tagged it so, but don't really expect an RFV process or anything. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't change it myself, as I wasn't 100% certain and couldn't figure out why other dictionaries weren't more specific about it (answer: because they normally don't go to that level of specificity.) I also didn't change it myself, because I don't care enough to do more than a few minutes of looking at it; it is announced in the central discussion areas, so the regulars will have a field day if they find evidence that I said something not 100% perfectly correct, in all situations, for all regions and time-periods.  :-)
That is a very curious tagging method you used. Why not just use {{rfv-sense}} on a second definition line of overrode (since that is what is in dispute?) --Connel MacKenzie 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on the "jones" RFV

I hope this will not be regarded as a personal attack, although as you are a very busy, active contributor, I do not expect you will actually respond to this anyway, but I wanted to let you know that I found your recent remarks on the jones RFV rather offensive. I am sure that no offence was meant, but I nevertheless find it offensive that you should question Raifʻhār Doremítzwr on whether he is "American" just because he brought a piece of American slang to RFV. You attest that this is different from your own actions in frequently bringing British slang to RFV, such as soz and like the back end of a bus, because "There is an enormous difference between my nominations of obscure UK-only phrases (never heard of in the US, not in any respectable dictionary,) vs. your nomination of a term that appears in every dictionary that I've checked". However, the word "jones" is absent from The Cassell Concise Dictionary (1997 edition - the dictionary I normally use), nor is it in the fifth edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary (the other decent dictionary I own). The presence of a US slang word in a US or international dictionary (I would guess that that all your dictionaries are either US or international) does not make it any less obscure than "soz" and "like the back end of a bus", which are widely understood in the UK.

I notice that Doremítzwr seems to have a hostile attitude towards you, as is evident from his user page, but I still feel you could have worded your response in a way that does not make it sound as though American slang is somehow more valid than British slang. I am not objecting to your nominations of UK slang for RFV; on the contrary, I have come to regard this as doing Wiktionary a service. However, I do feel that other, non-American people should be allowed to raise similar objections to American slang without receiving an apparently sarcastic reply, and I find it rather alarming that you should consider it appropriate to term the nomination of a word for RFV "vandalism". This seems particularly ironic when you yourself then acknowledge that, actually, both senses of the term are "incorrect".

You are a hardworking contributor and in many ways do the project a great service. I just wanted to make it clear, respectfully I hope, that I think that you would make it easier for other people to similarly assist the project by displaying a less forceful, less prejudiced and less sarcastic attitude. Thanks, RobbieG 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. A minor clarification from the above: jones/jonesing is a valid slang term, but that has nothing to do with our definition(s) for it being wrong.
My tone was perhaps extra harsh there; User:Doremitzwr obviously knows what is wrong about his actions...that is, out of the blue, #1) deciding to expand the scope of an RFV without using separate rfv-sense items, #2) not even checking any of his normal references, instead spouting nonsense about claiming not to understand a very common term, #3) using obviously inappropriate tags, such as {{neologism}} despite the term being in use for decades, #4) ignoring the fact that the senses were already tagged as {{US}} - when I nominate stuff, it is generally because it isn't tagged as UK-only in addition to being unfamiliar.
Now, I think we all understand that he has a penchant for obscure terms. If he got with the program and treated common terms with the same alacrity he treats obvious errors/obsolete terms/obscure nonsense, I would have no grounds for complaint. But seeing his inflammatory comments at WT:RFV#jones, I am again left wondering what POV he is trying to push. Perhaps, that en.wikt: should include only obscure or obsolete terms? That is very much in opposition to building a usable dictionary. Hence, my use of the "V" word with regards to his actions.
Thank you for the reminder about civility, though. My statements would certainly come across as more persuasive, if turned down a notch or two. (That seems to be User:Ruakh's unending theme as well, but drowned out by an inordinate amount of noise, slants, barbs and personal attacks.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid, agreeable and enlightening response. Sorry to have bothered you, and cheers! RobbieG 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#spetchel

Does that work for you? --Marmoset Marmalade 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, {{nosecondary}} says this:

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

So, no, I don't think that meets our criteria, offhand. (FWIW, it isn't even tagged as {{obsolete}} yet.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So even though it is a word, it won't be listed? I assume then I need to find a journal of some kind that talks about it? --Marmoset Marmalade 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I found a listing here as well. --Marmoset Marmalade 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in the glossary of north country words. You can see it's copyright status here. Other books that have the term is found here. The most recent is a 1961 book by Joseph Wright entitled: The English Dialect Dictionary: Being the Complete Vocabulary of All Dialects. --Marmoset Marmalade 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that those are all secondary sources. None of them show the word in use, which is generally what we're after. I'll copy your references over to RFV for everyone's benefit. This really doesn't belong on a user talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So I need to find a current article or something that uses it? --Marmoset Marmalade 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't expect it to appear in current texts, but there are plenty of older texts online. A quick look at http://books.google.com/books?q=%22spetchel%22&hl=en implies that it isn't the right form; it seems more like an adjective, e.g. a "spetchel dyke." --Connel MacKenzie 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
However, it also appears as a noun here: http://books.google.com/books?id=JcZDqzjRGN0C&pg=PA92&dq=%22spetchel%22 by stating it is "turf used in bedding stone." In this instance: http://books.google.com/books?id=z5FMQxdgXbsC&pg=RA1-PA152&dq=%22spetchel%22 you can see that it refers to not only by the word itself, but as a type of dike with turf between the stones. From the link that you had, you can see the entry that says "A spetchel hedge is one constructed of alternate rows of stones and thin turf". If you couple that with the previous definition, you can see that it has multiple uses. --Marmoset Marmalade 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Help?

Connel, I can use your help. I want to make a Wikipedia account. At my job, the IP is blocked and I can't make an account there, and my computer's down at home, as it has been for a couple of weeks. Is there anyway I can get an account there? Bakura 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Special:Emailuser to any of the Wikipedia admins here, explaining the situation. Include your e-mail address and the desired account name in the body of the message. (See also: w:WP:RQAC.) They will then be able to create the account for you, with an auto-generated password sent to your e-mail address. --Connel MacKenzie 05:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did. It said I need to login and set an e-mail address in my preferences. Bakura 06:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so visit Special:Preferences and enter your e-mail address there. Then read the e-mail, and click the confirmation link. Then go to Special:Preferences again, and enable e-mail from other users. Then try the "E-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" section of the left-most column on user pages. (I believe WT:A lists the administrators here, that are also administrators over there. I am not a Wikipedia administrator, myself...I haven't checked to see if I've been nominated again, recently.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a message to Celestial-something and await a response. Bakura 07:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: User is now blocked indefinitely here for an inexplicable personal attack on a sysop. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

bead breaker

What does bead mean in this context? SemperBlotto 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link from w:Bead breaker, you'll find a diagram under "Tyyre repair" that looks like this: http://www.beadbreaker.co.za/pictures/image001.jpg. I agree, our definition of bead is currently lacking that definition. It is the steel band at the very edge of a tire that seats itself against the rim, creating an air-tight seal by using an astounding amount of force. --Connel MacKenzie 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Of great amusement, is the link they have at the end, for re-seating the bead against the rim: http://www.big-boys.com/articles/bigboystire.html. (The short-life-expectancy method.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WOTD update

I should have time this afternoon/evening to start the October batch. I've got all the words selected for next month and have got notes on the first week's worth so that I can edit definitions (if needed). The whole lot should be in by the weekend. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I had a large batch selected for October, but it is all very time-consuming, so I'm glad if you are able to get back on it. --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I notice in retrospect that a had a similar wiki-break from WOTD around this time last year. I think in future I shall plan on taking off one month each year, around this time. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would be great, to have the break scheduled.  :-) Last year was a month and a half or so. Perhaps September & October would be a better break for next year? Announcing in May/Jun that a temporary WOTDer will be needed would be a decent way a screening WOTDer-wannabes. In retrospect, I don't think "enticing" was a very good WOTD (I was shooting for a very common term on that one.) Also, in retrospect, I think the "WOTD definitions" (shorter summary definitions gleaned from the main entries) should probably be a minimum of ten words long, so they don't look goofy. I still prefer to have senses recombined to a single "definition line" on the WOTD versions, only partly for technical reasons. (That bug still exists - second definition lines do not appear in either the RSS feed nor in the daily mailing list.) Thank you for returning earlier than expected. --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have posted the selections for October 1 -15 now, and am cleaning up the selected entries and adding audio. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

plodges

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

It's mainly because Category:Geordie was becoming difficult to navigate with all the verb forms and plurals. The article plodges takes you back to the main entry (infinitive) plodge with the regional label and references. Because the word will have almost no use outside of the Northeast of the UK I did not see much point in labelling it itself - I'd only label the verb forms if they were Standard English words but had a specific regional use. --Williamsayers79 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Then I am still left confused. The edict from years past, was that redirects can always be replaced with form-of entries and form-of entries can always be expanded to include more. With the only exception being the Translations section, more (examples, synonyms, etymologies, quotations, etc.) are supposed to always be welcome, on form-of entries. Pushing them to a sub-category would seem OK (but we haven't crossed that bridge yet.) In that vein, it might even make sense to use {{i|Geordie}} on plodges so readers (like me) don't look at it, thinking "what on Earth? English?"  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough I'll label with {{i|Geordie}} for verb forms until I workout a way of sub-categorising them.--Williamsayers79 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your nice sedate response.

Re: your recent RFD comment: Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Format question

Dear Connel and community,

I have taken the liberty of moving this to Wiktionary talk:Quotations, since the discussion was becoming a bit difficult to follow. Please revert if that's a problem. -- Visviva 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. This seems like a good time to discuss more generally the cases in which it's appropriate to move a discussion. What do y'all think? Just kidding! Don't kill me, Connel! :-PRuakhTALK 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Genuinely funny humor from Ruakh? I thought I'd never see the day! Thank you for the smile. --Connel MacKenzie 05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask if you looked whether the latest color choice for a quotation mark shows on your grey background, on Wiktionary talk:Quotations#Current discussion please? :) Best regards Rhanyeia 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I added there two possible color examples, which one looks better on your screen? :) Best regards Rhanyeia 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was searching for words to express why I didn't like the underlying concept, when I got pulled away. I will try to comment this evening. --Connel MacKenzie 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. :) I'm hoping that you'll change your mind and start to like it. :) The first shade is #333355, grey with a slight blue shading, and the second is #880000, brown. Best regards Rhanyeia 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell anyway which color you would see as better, just in case it gets accepted it's important to make it as good as possible. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
How do I convince you that this is a very good thing. :) I hope to get your support. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist autopatrol.

Hi,

When I visit Special:Watchlist, JavaScript automatically marks every as-yet-unpatrolled edit as patrolled — not just those by editors listed at User:Connel MacKenzie/patrolled.js. You wrote this JavaScript, right? Is this a design feature?

RuakhTALK 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that shows just how often I use the watchlist.  :-( It is disabled for now. If I get a minute, I'll rework it to only add the (mark) thing, but never auto-mark unless on Special:RC. --Connel MacKenzie 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)