User talk:Slashme

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

I talk to the trees[edit]

That's why they put me away. --Slashme 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Please remember this rule of thumb: no redirects in the main namespace (especially for different spellings.) Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. --Slashme 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)



Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


You edited the entry for trainer to list takkie as a synonym, but then you created an entry for takkies that claims it only exists in the plural. Please fix whichever of these is wrong. —RuakhTALK 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I copied the noun template with plural only from trainers - what's the correct way to do it? --Slashme (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that takkie does exist in the singular; see [1][2][3]. So, it should just be treated as a regular noun, with a note indicating that it's chiefly found in the plural. I've fixed that now. By the way — "IPA" stands for "International Phonetic Alphabet". —RuakhTALK 11:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix! Should I do the same for trainers, seeing as it also exists in the singular? Also, please explain a bit more about your comment on "IPA": I know what it stands for, but are you saying that the pronunciation I gave was not in the International Phonetic Alphabet, or that it shouldn't be called that when it's used to give the pronunciation of English words? - I think I get the point now: my pronunciation wasn't in IPA! --Slashme (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about [[trainers]]: it's already been flagged for fixing. :-)   —RuakhTALK 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


When adding quotations, please format them per Wiktionary:Quotations. (I thought you'd recognize my edits as hints, but apparently not . . .) —RuakhTALK 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please be a bit more specific on what I'm doing wrong? I created a citations page because I thought that was good practice. Is there a general rule about when to use a citations page and when to just add usage examples into the main article? I really didn't intend to screw up formatting or ignore policies: I just saw that Citations:trade was given as an example of how to format a citations page, and cut and pasted the formatting from there. --Slashme (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: what you're doing wrong: At [[takkie]], I've formatted the 1948 and 1986 quotations, and left the 2001 and 2006 quotations as you put them, so you can see the difference.
Re: when to use a citations page: We don't have a specific rule, no, but an entry as short as [[takkie]], with just one sense, doesn't need its citations to be moved to a citations-page. (But, to be clear — my complaint was not with your use of a citations-page, just with the formatting of the citations no matter where they are.)
Re: not intending to screw up formatting: Don't worry, I didn't think you did. :-)
Re: Citations:trade: that page is a bit of a mess — bad punctuation, misuse/overuse of italics, a stray "Pres", a stray bullet, a quotation in English attributed to an author who did not write in English, timelines for individual quotations, etc. — and you shouldn't use it as a model.
RuakhTALK 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you've now fixed the quotations at [[takkie]]. Thank you! —RuakhTALK 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and guidance! Some more questions: You take issue with "timelines for individual quotations" on Citations:trade, but WT:Citations says: "each definition should have a section formatted with a gloss header (level three), followed by a usage {{timeline}}" - what am I missing? Also, what's your opinion on the use of Template:quote-book to format quotations? --Slashme (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: timelines: O.K., I'll concede that. It seems silly to me, but whatever. :-)   Re: {{quote-book}}: I personally loathe every single quotation template, for a variety of reasons, but if you want to use them, you certainly won't be alone. —RuakhTALK 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks again! I'm a big fan of citation templates, because they take care of formatting, and if consensus changes on what the best formatting should be, it can all be fixed with one edit, so I might just end up joining them. --Slashme (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: "they take care of formatting, and if consensus changes on what the best formatting should be, it can all be fixed with one edit": That's the theory, yes. That, in general, is the point of templates. But my experience is that the quotation-templates do not live up to that dream, and I'm not optimistic that they can be improved significantly. —RuakhTALK 21:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)