Auto archived page index:
- 1 sledge
- 2 Welcome, Yiddish
- 3 Mr Ass Pus
- 4 circumambient
- 5 comport
- 6 Where words belong
- 7 Giving back your goat
- 8 Related terms
- 9 Transwikification
- 10 More on Transwikification
- 11 Anoter Transwikification note
- 12 Zurcir
- 13 Vermont
- 14 punctuation in titles
- 15 FYI
- 16 Copier
- 17 Wikitangent
- 18 Fricantem
- 19 Unununium et al.
- 20 Reverting
- 21 re user:220.127.116.11
- 22 AHD
- 23 DB Dumps
- 24 Medical glossaries
- 25 Citations vs Quotations pages
- 26 Citations template
- 27 Finish!
- 28 vinomadefied
- 29 Quaint
- 30 Spanish articles
- 31 Michael Moore
- 32 Template:en-verb
- 33 subst:
- 34 WikiSaurus:breasts
- 35 chillaxin
- 36 Admin
- 37 WT:RFV: fieldball
- 38 Thanks for the welcome
- 39 Newbie mix-up!
- 40 WT:RFD nonos
- 41 Re: Trailing spaces
- 42 proton pack, batmoble
- 43 charlie card
- 44 Your message re abortion
- 45 Administrator?
- 46 RFD archive
- 47 Gullible
- 48 Avatar
- 49 Information desk
- 50 DPDD
- 51 WikiSaurus:book
- 52 Maybe a WikiSaurus bot would be useful
- 53 Format
- 54 Wiktionary:Project - WikiSaurus improvement 1
- 55 Check some clean up on WikiSaurus:breasts
- 56 Bad users
- 57 monophysite
- 58 googolplexian
- 59 www.onelook.com
- 60 WT:RFV#lolicon
- 61 troll
- 62 Tea Room
- 63 Vicarious
- 64 Pce3
- 65 WikiSaurus - compromise proposed (/more)
- 66 I'd like to look at a few examples of how your WikiSaurus layout is working.
- 67 WikiSaurus formatting page
- 68 WikiSaurus:annoy
- 69 butt monkey
- 70 Policy re verification
- 71 Move vandals
- 72 forcrudate
- 73 frustration
- 74 citetab.js
- 75 Dave
- 76 Nomination?!?
- 77 Welcome back
- 78 googlephile
- 79 Reversion
Thanks TheDave - that usage is also in the cricket source that I am using (when I get around to it). Cheers SemperBlotto 19:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, TheDaveRoss, and hello from CA! Everything looks pretty good to me so far, but what do I know? I just contribute here. Thanks for some interesting words, already. If you're doing Yiddish derivations (a colorful subject on which I wish I could count myself an expert), you might want to look at the existing entry for kvetch and see whether you can add anything. I didn't see shmutz on your list. Are you calling it shmuz, or is it just not in common use? You should also, of course, peruse Leo Rosten's _The Joys of Yinglish_. It's a delightful volume, though you might want to complete your own list first so you don't inadvertently get his work mixed up in yours. I look forward to seeing more of your entries. --Dvortygirl 06:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr Ass Pus
Well, you would have to ask a developer about that.
He is only doing it as a game, and adding obstacles would probaby just provoke him into more subtle attacks. It is just the cross we have to bear I'm afraid.
Anyway, keep on making your usual good contributions. SemperBlotto 09:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be multiple entries, one for each part of speech? (with ===related terms=== pointers) SemperBlotto 07:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The norm is separate articles. But some people would make the "other" articles simple redirects. That is what I do for adverbs of the form xxxishly where it just means "in an xxx manner". But this is Wiki, so you just do what you think is best, and if others come along and meddle - that's OK. Cheers. SemperBlotto 07:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) p.s. Yes, your first reply somehow got lost in the vandalism.
Hi Dave, welcome to Wiktionary.
Have a look at the changes I have made to your entry for "comport". This is more the standard format for articles. The changes are minor, so they might seem picky, but this helps give a uniform look to Wiktionary.
Where words belong
Reading your user page, I suppose you don't know that words with different spelling (apart from this little first letter capitalization problem which still has to be sorted out) require different entries. Thus disparately and disparateness will have to be split off from the page disparate. If you were aware of this and chose this form intentionally, please join the beer parlour discussion about the issue. (Checking from time to time what's going on in the beer parlour is a good idea anyway) Ncik 22 Apr 2005
(continued from Talk:put one's best foot forward)
I do hope there are no hard feelings about the bit on "best foot forward". It was just too good to leave alone, and I was really taking a jab at the language, not at you. Besides, you have been having entirely too much pun around here lately (ahem). (Those who don't yet fully speak the language must think we're all nuts; those who do must know it by now!) Anyhow, adjusting for inflation, my two cents here should come to at least $26.95, right? --Dvortygirl 03:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, the "Related terms" section is used for terms that are morphologically related, not semantically related, that is, it included words that have come from the same root as the word on the page but are not derived from it. Words that are semantically related go under "See also".
So, for example, in your entry anteayer, "antes" and "ayer" come from the same source as "anteayer" and so come under "Related terms", but mañana is related only semantically and so belongs under "See also". — Paul G 10:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, your assumptions are correct. There are many ways you can help in the process:
- Go through the articles in the transwiki log that do not merit an entry in the wiktionary and put them on WT:RFD. Note it next to the entry on the transwiki log (look at the entry under "X" for an example). This is a fairly tedious, but important task.
- Go through the entries in the transwiki log and see if there is already an entry in Wiktionary. If there is, and the transwiki entry doesn't have any new information then make the tranwiki entry into a redirect to the wiktionary entry. Move the tranwiki entry above the "high water mark" (see "Apolitical" just above the HWM for an example).
- Go through the articles that do merit an entry that are not really dictionary entries and format them according the the Wikipedia standards.
- You can stop at formatting them, but it's more helpful to actually add them to Wiktionary, so after you've properly formatted an article (and fact checked it) and added anything else that's useful to it you should use the "Move" button to move it out of the transwiki namespace. When the article is moved, you should move it's entry in the transwiki log above the High Water Mark.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions. There's over 900 entries there for us to work our way through. Kevin Rector 22:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More on Transwikification
I noticed that you created Barrulet then copied the text over and made Transwiki:Barrulet into a redirect. Generally, you should use the "move" tab to move the page so that the edit history and talk page goes with it. As part of the transwiki process the edit history from Wikipedia is put in the talk page of the transwiki page (for GFDL attribution purposes) and that information is supposed to stay with the article as it is moved into the main namespace.
Good work, you've really thrown yourself into it. Where in Vermont are you, if you don't mind me asking? My parents live in Rutland. Kevin Rector 00:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anoter Transwikification note
I swear I'm not a stalker, but since you've begun helping with the transwiki process would you please look at my proposal at Wiktionary talk:Transwiki log and weigh in. Kevin Rector 02:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
template:pres subj 3rd for present subjunctive of 2nd and 3rd conjugations
- "zurz-" root as in the "zurcir" subjunctive with template:pres subj 3rd
Template:pres subj 3rd This template can be used for all verbs with the "zurcir" present-subjunctive-mood conjugation. The parameter <par1> has to be replaced with the subjunctive root. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I moved the template to Template:pres subj 3rd, where "pres subj 3rd" stands for "present subjunctive of the 3rd conjugation type". That way you don't have to choose a certain verb like "zurcir", but just remember the ascending order of grammatical accidents from tense to mood to conjugation type, in the form [[Template:tense mood conjugation_type]]. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Making various templates for the various tenses of the moods, or for the moods themselves, is not a "huge undertaking". You just have to copy the tables you already have and paste them on the corresponding template pages, and replace the roots of the verbs with the parameter tags. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And, yes, I do use the preview button, but I also like to make changes after I save. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The template doesn't work for "duerm-", because the plural root is "durm-".
I think that Vermont is beautiful, but I couldn't live there myself; the winters are just too long. I've been to Woodstock it's a very nice town. It seems like the sort of town that nobody would actually live in though, maybe a bit too Norman Rockwell. Well, it's nice to meet you and I look forward to more interactions in the future. Kevin Rector 19:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
punctuation in titles
Please try to avoid using periods at the end of abbreviations. You have no idea how much grief I've gotten (well, still occasionally get) for including periods in titles of Webster abbreviation templates. (I did that as an exception to the rule, to match the screwy Webster abbreviations as directly pasted in. A couple others have also started using those particular etymology templates.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to put a link to a category you have to put a colon in the front of it like list Category:English nouns. If you don't add the colon it will add the page to the category and won't show the link. It took me a few weeks to figure that trick out. Kevin Rector 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey good catch, I guess I was going too fast for my own good. Thanks for handling that. Kevin Rector 05:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, TheDaveRoss, you're right. I made up wikitangent. In truth, deletion is appropriate although I thought it was a novel protologism. I believe a "wikitangent", as I've defined it, is a rather common practice on wikipedia, although I might be mistaken. Have you ever had a wikitangent? --Rjg1021 05:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, and understood. Thanks --Rjg1021 05:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Unununium et al.
Hello! Maybe I am a bit late and you already know, but just in case. I've just read your request in el wikci about the provisional names of new elements (unununium, ununoctium, etc). In Spanish I have seen both the ending -ium and -io for this kind of neologisms but I guess this last ending (-io) is a more convenient option as it follows better the Spanish use and tradition. Thanks for all your contributions in the (so far somehow a bit messy) Wikci :) --Piolinfax 09:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. Teh Ph34r 21:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It looks like Kevin Rector got to him first. I also deleted his Headcrab article, which he first put in on May 7. Unfortunately, by the time we get to many of these guys, they've already tired of playing for the day. Eclecticology 02:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. As far as I know, Wiktionary currently, and unfortunately, lacks an AHD chart. Perhaps I will work on one. For now, your best bet is to Google for a chart. 24 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The database dumps can be found at http://download.wikimedia.org. I'm not sure how often they are made, ususally I think about once a month or so. You'll need to have MySql installed to use them.
Hi, try these for size:
I haven't checked, but these are probably copyright works. We must seek permission from the compilers if we are intending to copy the definitions and/or translations. — Paul G 09:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, your entry "mikro" is not a Greek word. Greek does not use the Roman alphabet. — Paul G 09:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS: Excellent work on entering Spanish words beginning with Q, by the way! — Paul G 09:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links, they look like very good resources. I know that mikro isn't in Greek, it is a trasnliteration of a Greek word which we don't have, and, as soon as we do have it should point at the proper entry. - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And so I come to destroy your redirect almost at once... to replace it with a sv: entry. :/ \Mike 09:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Citations vs Quotations pages
Hi Dave. I see that you created a xxx/Citations page to research the validity of a word. I do think it's cool that you're using this but perhaps you're not aware of the xxx/Quotations pages. I think there is only one of these so far: Tidal_wave/Quotations. The difference is that xxx/Citations is just like the slips of paper that traditional paper dictionaries used to use - no other analysis belongs there. Just a collection which can be drawn from. xxx/Quotations is the place to analyse usage and draw conclusions.
Keep up the good work! — Hippietrail 03:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again. I just wanted to let you know that we now have Template:Citations and Template:seeCites. — Hippietrail 04:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted template:citations and edited the two pages that used it to use template:seeCites. SemperBlotto 07:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary_talk:Requested_articles:English#vinomadefied just to let you know I sourced it :)
I've replied to your comment on the quaint-entry talk page.
Primetime 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks OK. I kept all of your changes, but the nested list wasn't showing up, so I had to encode that again in HTML. --Primetime 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just replied again. --Primetime 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool work you're doing with the Spanish words right now.
I just wanted to remind you that section headings are in "Sentence case" and not "Title Case" on the English Wiktionary. Also, when you know words are related it's better to put them under one of the level-4 headings "Derived terms" or "Related terms" than under "See also". "See also" is fine if you're not sure whether they're related or not. Looking at the online RAE can usually tell you whether they're related. — Hippietrail 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Dave, I changed the layout again. I hope you don't mind, but I wasn't particularly fond of your purple. Feel free to revert, though. Cheers. — Vildricianus 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind could you mark your subst: edits as minor so my Recent list is easier to navigate? Thanks, TheDaveRoss
- Sorry, I forgot. It's done already, though. — Vildricianus 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
To TheDaveRoss, reWikiSaurus:breasts: Yes the list was hugely over populated. But the answer is to categorise/sort some of the list, and put it virtually as an appendix. As it is, in your huge deletion you have deleted
- some common words
- a lot of someone's effort
And please, WikiSaurus is not the place to start getting tough on words. --Richardb 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on [[Talk:WikiSaurus:breasts]]--Richardb 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You might not like the word, but that's no reason to call for it's deletion. It gets 229,000 hits on Google, so I think it needs a bit more consideration. I've put into the Request for Verification list instead.
You got to tread carefully before you go round over enthusiastically cleaning up. At least check on Google for how many hits.
And one piece of clean up you could have done was decapitalize it.--Richardb 06:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Where did I state that I didn't like the word? Your assumtion is baseless and wrong, I RFDed it because I had seen it on a list of protologisms, which are not wikt* content.
- You need to have a bit more basis for putting something on the chopping block than that.
If it has gained acceptance then good, the system worked. RFDing something is a note that I feel something needs to be looked into
- RfD is supposed to reflect a considered opinion that an item should be deleted, and when a few people agree it is deleted. I can't see how your opinion was at all considered. No evidence of even the simplest of checks.
I didn't delete anything, I didn't blank anything,
- You took heaps of information off the relevant pages - that, to me, is deleting, losing information.
and as far as I know you are the only person offended by people trying to keep wiktionary clean and accurate.
- Far from it. In the past I've done my share of dishwashing. But, you have to have consideration, and care, not just willy throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your approach to clean-up seems to be to use a fire-hose to make sure everything gets washed.
OK, then make that change, not just RfD it. As for treading carefully, I think you ought to tread carefully when it comes to removing other users tags without the consent of the user or community,
- no idea what you are on about. I tag everything, except the occasional forgetful occasion.
and you should tread carefully on over to the formatting page to see what actually needs to be done to that article. - TheDaveRoss
- No, if you want to update it, you do it. I just stopped you chucking it out.
Just leave the firehose and sledghammer approach out for a while, and lay off WikiSaurus if you don't understand it--Richardb 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This to let you know that I have processed your nomination as an admin. Good luck! Eclecticology 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- How about making your first protection by unprotecting my userpage, cheers. --Expurgator t(c) 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd never heard of it before, either. But, I think you should know: "I've never heard of it" is specifically not a valid reason to submit something to RFV. This gets an awful lot of google hits, so it seems to be quite legitemate, glancing over the first page of results (most seem to be uses of the term, not dicdefs.)
There have been at least three separate ugly flame wars about that phrase being used to nominate a term for execution. Although I agree that it is an obscure term, it pretty soundly meets WT:CFI.
Thanks for the welcome
Thank you for the welcome message. I've actually been "on board" for a couple of years, but haven't contributed very much to date, mainly because I've been fairly busy at Wikiquote and Wikipedia. Most of my contributions come when I want to link from those projects to a definition that doesn't exist or could use some improvement. I hope to do more in the future. ~ Jeff Q 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As SemperBlotto already told me, there were already articles on the Greek regions West Macedonia, Central Macedonia and East Macedonia and Thrace. I apologise because I didn't know that they were there. As I said to him, I am a newbie here, so still learning! :)
Please avoid deleting your own nominations on WT:RFD. I was just cruizing through the list, and got n internal error, cause you deleted rawdawg moments before me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Trailing spaces
You're a liar. If you think that they're copied from somewhere, then provide a link to the source. --Primetime 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, to answer your first question, they do serve a purpose.--Primetime 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't proper to include the spaces. Thus, I will move the articles to correct for that. --Primetime 05:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
proton pack, batmoble
TheDaveRoss wrote in Request for Deletion: \\\\\\\'\\\\\\\'Doesn\\\\\\\'t merit inclusion, nor does batmobile, or flux capacitor\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\'
Yet video game terms like metroid and moblin remain peacefully on the site (they\\\\\\\'re not in Webster\\\\\\\'s dictionary) What do you have against well known movie terms? Eddie 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- moblin is red to me, and metroid is some kind of bug, but those things aside, I don\'t think that proton pack is a useful entry. This is my opinion (if it had been an obvious rule violation or anything I would have deleted it, instead I nominated it for deletion because I am sure there will be some discussion, during which time precident will be set about objects which exist only in the realm of fiction and their inclusion in this project. It is called progress and it is a \'\'good\'\' thing.) I don\'t have anything against you or anything, we just have different opinions about what belongs here and what doesn\'t. - TheDaveRoss 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
oh well, it\'s good to talk about it on verification. I\'m going to leave it other users to discuss it and see if they\'d approve or reject, good night. Eddie 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A charlie card is like a metrocard, a plastic card used to enter the Boston railways, is this a legit entry? -- 18.104.22.168 10:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Your message re abortion
Thanks for your message. I will respect consensus. I have no history at Wiktionary, but am an experienced and respected Wikipedian, and always try to follow the three-revert rule. There doesn't seem to be that rule here? At least, I looked for it when I saw that Halliburton Shill was reverting so often, and I found something, but it didn't seem to be policy. (I tried to stick to it, nonetheless, as Wikipedia has given me a feeling that that rule is a Good Thing!) I might register an account here sometime, but am a little bit busy at the moment. And by the way, contrary to what Halliburton claims in his edit summary, I am not Goodandevil. Nor am I a vandal. Cheers. 22.214.171.124 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? The user Wikigregg is vandalizing numerous pages again with automated spam. (See Recent Changes) --EncycloPetey 05:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead and subdivide the archive I generated from the full dump by month then? Could you please devise something similiar to template:beer parlour timeline for rfd? I think it will need finer subdivision than BP currently has. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to pop in, but would it be reasonable to include the relevant information on the talk page of entries that survived RFD/RFV? — Vildricianus 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Connel: I was going to do that once I was done with March, but if you want to I won't stop you ;)
- Vild: We *could*...but I would rather not. The people who typically RFD something (hence are likely to again) are also the type of people who read the RFD page and the histories of entries before doing so...I think it would be redundant as well as a lot of extra work. This isn't to say that I would mind or disagree if someone *else* did it ;)
- TheDaveRoss 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer on my talk page. I had forgotten that I ever made such a question ;-).--youssef 19:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Richardb response (on talk page) Would prefer to send questions about words to Wiktionary:Tea Room. Think it should be called "information desk". People are not looking for a discussion (never mind an argument, flame war and everything elese we have in Beer Parlour. IS FOR "Questions about formatting entries" - the answers might point the new user to WT:ELE etc, but the information desk is the place for a newbie to start by asking the simple question
TheDaveRoss - thanks for taking up this idea.--Richardb 00:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave, I'm intrigued. Looks interesting and positive. Have you documented your ideas at all ?--Richardb 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've come up with another possible format. See User:Richardb/danger. The idea here is to condense entries in WikiSaurus, giviung related nouns, adverbs, verbs, adjectives etc all in one place.
Your comments please.--Richardb 08:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a WikiSaurus bot would be useful
I feel it would be good if we could find someone to write a bot to populate the WikiSaurus a bit more.
Go through all entries (English), find any synonyms, and create or add to the corresponding WikiSaurus entries. Perhaps in both directions.
However, this might create too many entries. But, is this in line with what you are thinking anyway. As in WikiSaurus:book you refer to (as yet non-existent) WikiSaurus entries for tome, volume, etc. My view is we need to somehow limit ourselves to having HeadWords as entries in WikiSaurus.
Perhaps therefore what we need is a report to find all words with synonyms, and manually create WikiSaurus entries to suit, using suitable HeadWords.
And then have a bot to put see WikiSaurus:xxxx in entries where the entry word is referred to by the WikiSaurus page. But then how to put the see WikiSaurus:xxx against the right meaning ?
But, who can we get to do these bots and reports. Any ideas ?--Richardb 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've created this page to have a common ground to discuss improvements to WikiSaurus. Some activity is happening. Hope you are interested.--Richardb 09:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There's been a bit of discussion, I've put up a compromise proposal. seeWiktionary:Project_-_WikiSaurus_improvement_1#Compromise_Proposal_RB_2006_April_5th --Richardb 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Check some clean up on WikiSaurus:breasts
I've done a little bit of work (and Connel) to try to make this mountain of dross look a little better. Have alook.--Richardb 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- User talk:555 vs. 555
- User talk:AAA vs. AAA
- User talk:Adrian vs. Adrian
- User talk:Angela vs. Angela
- User talk:Atropos vs. Atropos
- User talk:Baldur vs. Baldur
- User talk:Bilbo vs. Bilbo
- User talk:Bogdan vs. Bogdan
- User talk:Brett vs. Brett
- User talk:Ces vs. Ces
- User talk:Colin vs. Colin
- User talk:Danny vs. Danny
- User talk:David vs. David
- User talk:Elf vs. Elf
- User talk:English vs. English
- User talk:Fasten vs. Fasten
- User talk:Fido vs. Fido
- User talk:Gabriel vs. Gabriel
- User talk:Gd vs. Gd
- User talk:Gerrit vs. Gerrit
- User talk:Gulen vs. Gulen
- User talk:Henry vs. Henry
- User talk:Homer vs. Homer
- User talk:Jrme vs. Jrme
- User talk:Kirk vs. Kirk
- User talk:Kubanskaya vs. Kubanskaya
- User talk:MG vs. MG
- User talk:Mac vs. Mac
- User talk:Marcel vs. Marcel
- User talk:Maya vs. Maya
- User talk:Mike vs. Mike
- User talk:N vs. N
- User talk:Paddy vs. Paddy
- User talk:Patrick vs. Patrick
- User talk:Per vs. Per
- User talk:Phoenix vs. Phoenix
- User talk:Plato vs. Plato
- User talk:Renjith vs. Renjith
- User talk:Rob vs. Rob
- User talk:Samuel vs. Samuel
- User talk:Sherlock Holmes vs. Sherlock Holmes
- User talk:Stanley vs. Stanley
- User talk:Wiktionary vs. Wiktionary
- User:555 vs. 555
- User:AAA vs. AAA
- User:Adrian vs. Adrian
- User:Angela vs. Angela
- User:Anurag vs. Anurag
- User:Atropos vs. Atropos
- User:Av vs. Av
- User:Ben vs. Ben
- User:Benjamin vs. Benjamin
- User:Bilbo vs. Bilbo
- User:Bogdan vs. Bogdan
- User:Ces vs. Ces
- User:Chris vs. Chris
- User:Danny vs. Danny
- User:David vs. David
- User:Edward vs. Edward
- User:Elf vs. Elf
- User:Fasten vs. Fasten
- User:Ford vs. Ford
- User:Gabriel vs. Gabriel
- User:Garrett vs. Garrett
- User:Gd vs. Gd
- User:Gollum vs. Gollum
- User:Homer vs. Homer
- User:Hydra vs. Hydra
- User:Isis vs. Isis
- User:Jrme vs. Jrme
- User:Karl vs. Karl
- User:MG vs. MG
- User:Mac vs. Mac
- User:Marcel vs. Marcel
- User:Meelar vs. Meelar
- User:Miguel vs. Miguel
- User:Mike vs. Mike
- User:N vs. N
- User:Paddy vs. Paddy
- User:Patrick vs. Patrick
- User:Plato vs. Plato
- User:Renjith vs. Renjith
- User:Samuel vs. Samuel
- User:Smith vs. Smith
- User:Tony vs. Tony
- User:Trevor vs. Trevor
- User:Wiktionary vs. Wiktionary
- User:William vs. William
- User:Wolfram vs. Wolfram
I'll do it again case/diacrtic insensitive some other time.
There is something peculiar happening. Would you please look here and see whats up? Thanks Andrew massyn
- Thank you. Sometimes I am a twit. Andrew massyn
- That could be to block somebody who's been repeatedly spamming that article - but I could be wrong. — Hippietrail 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but if so, it was protected in a bad state, because the article is currently just a broken link. Do we have
sprotecthere? Rodasmith 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but if so, it was protected in a bad state, because the article is currently just a broken link. Do we have
- I'm confused. You ask me to look at the page's contents. I did so, and posted them above. The contents are "
#REDIRECT [[--error: link target missing--]]". That looks like a broken redirect to me. Does it look broken to you or are you able to see something else there since you have administrative privileges? Anyway, since googolplexian is a number, I hoped to define it, but I cannot because the page is locked with a broken link. There is no discussion at Talk:googolplexian nor (aside from the one and only history entry saying "protecting after 21 deleted edits...") is there any page history explaining whether the term was rejected or why the "googolplexian" page is left with a broken redirect. Furthermore, a few pages link to that broken redirect, so I'm left confused. Was there some decision that "googolplexian" does not meet our CFI? If so, it would be great to link to that decision on Talk:googolplexian. If that's the case, I'll unlink the linking entries. Rodasmith 06:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. You ask me to look at the page's contents. I did so, and posted them above. The contents are "
- Sorry I missed this for so long. (It is not my talk page, after all.) The page --error: link target missing-- is a valid page, intended originally for the MediaWiki software to use when a link actually was broken. Some time last year, we started using that same page for redirections of vandalism entries, when locking them down. The reasoning is that we do not wish to encourage the vandals by redirecting them to a "this page was vandalized!" thing, nor do we wish to redirect them to Main Page (as that leaves the "bad" url in the address bar, and a silly "redirected from..." message.)
- Do you have at least three book citations, spanning two years for googolplexian ready? If you post them (with your definition) on the talk page, I'll be happy to unprotect it for you. (Note that re-addition of items previously deemed to not be part of the English language is intended to be much harder. Most of our POV vandals promoting their pet terms have been quite persistent. This resulted in the very creation of the RFV process.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please talk to your contact(s) at www.onelook.com again, and explain the case-sensitivity issue to them (i.e. that we don't do the first-character thing the way Wikipedia does.) I double-checked my generated lists; they are correct. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, this is quite a topic on WT:BP now. Aparently they are not using the list of English-only terms, but rather, all terms in the English Wiktionary. I thought you said they didn't want that? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the capitalization issue seems to be resolved adequately. But it is curious that they include references for all en.wikt: terms, instead of working off the list I generate. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Our criteria specifies various forms of "durably archived" sources. Since groups.google.com exists, the usenet archives are considered durably archived. But the majority of the web pages "out there" are not. The goal is to include "reputable" sources, such as www.nytimes.com where we can be pretty sure one or two editors actually reviewed it. Alas, usenet is not one such source, but does serve as our primary resource for verifying slang.
Clear as mud?
- You don't have to follow a Tea Room question, answer or discussion beyond the part that interests you. What is more important is that you do not have the right to characterize or define the Tea Room as some kind of sanctuary where only one line questions and answers take place and as a place where discussion where ever it may lead is inappropriate. In the real world (versus the ideal world to which you aspire) any answer may lead to another question or comment just as its does in face to face conversations and discussions in the real world. It would be great to have a Tea Room side bar so that users could exit a thread but then that would defeat the purpose of having a place to discuss things in the first place. If you want to discuss this further tell me where you live and your age. -- Pce3@ij.net 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please dont vandalize it. 14:26, 6 May 2006 126.96.36.199
- I promise I will not. - TheDaveRoss
- D'oh!. See my talk page for Vild's identification of my error there! Sorry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
WikiSaurus - compromise proposed (/more)
copied from [WT:BP]===WikiSaurus - compromise proposed (/more)=== A possible compromise between the "tough criteria for WikiSaurus", and the "Don't lose even the least valuable "synonyms". Introduce, in WikiSaurus, a xxx/more subpage for the problem pages. Cull the trash from the main page (by whatever criteria), but don't just delete it, put it in the /more page. In the main page indicate that new entries not meeting the tough criteria have to be put in the /more page, and there can be researched for verifiability, and perhaps later promoted to the main page. With this I would then suggest we might even protect the main WikiSaurus page. Admin's would then be responsible for checking the /more pages every so often to see if there are any terms that could be promoted to the main page, as they meet the criteria. Thus we would meet two purposes. The main WikiSaurus page would be kept up to our "standard" (which I have to point is very subjectively applied), whilst the /more page would capture every possible synonym, and would in effect be a specific protologism page.--Richardb 23:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was trying to do with breasts and got shot down hard. - TheDaveRoss 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If it was me that shot you down, my apologies. (My memory is not the best, but I seem to recall I did revert a lot of stuff you knocked out of somewhere. If it was your intention to save the stuff in a separate page, then I guess I missed that. But, in fairness, you did use a much tougher criteria than 1,000 Ghits.) If it was not me, then who else out there is a rabifd inclusionist like me ? But, history aside, do you then agree it is a fair compromise ?--Richardb 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to look at a few examples of how your WikiSaurus layout is working.
I just had a look at your layout for WikiSaurus:swearword. Looks pretty good, not too complicated. (I did make a small suggestion on the talk page). Can you please give me a list of a few other examples of how your format is now looking. --Richardb 07:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the layout of WikiSaurus:stingy is not working.
- Comment on a few of them. SeeWikiSaurus:son I'd prefer to see synonyms at the top, and related words further down.
- Other than that, the format is looking good.
- Can I suggest you create a template/tutorial for it, after the format you find at Template:new en useful, and include it in MediaWiki:Nogomatch (I was going to, but haven't got time at the moment)
- --Richardb 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
WikiSaurus formatting page
I wrote down where I am at on the formatting and put together this page to debate and establish WikiSaurus formatting policies, have a look. Wiktionary:WikiSaurus Format - TheDaveRoss 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me. Looks like a nice page for gathering all technical Wikisaurus stuff. I'm sure it will become clearer and easier to discuss and work on WS when there are a set of separate pages for it like this. The content itself also looks promising; very neat distinction of relationships, and certainly in the right direction. Keep up the good work! —Vildricianus 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I'd like to put pain somewhere into the WikiSaurus page (sense: an annoying person) - where do I do that? Would you recommend making a separate page WikiSaurus:annoying person, or should we include such relationships into the already existing page? What do you have in mind? —Vildricianus 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to start any entries for now - I'm still thinking and considering the best approach. Currently I think it's indeed best to create separate pages for the various parts of speech (annoyance vs. annoy), instead of one giant page for the same "theme". —Vildricianus 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though this entry is one I'd usually advocate removing, I've restored the history of it. The entry was partially recreated, and the deleted entry looked like it did have citations (just horribly formatted.) If you feel my restoring it was in error, I'll re-delete it, rather than cause offense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy re verification
Would you be able to move it. I am at work and have to go to court in 15 min. It would probably take me about an hour to move it normally. Thanks Andrew Massyn Thanks for doing that. I will try to summarise the discussion during the course of the week and post a summary there as well. The court case was an application for curatorship of a batty old lady. No one opposed. :) Andrew massyn 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dave. The article I deleted was not a move, but newly created, probably by cut and paste. I should have been more suspicious! Anyway you beat me to the block, so I left the tidy up to your capable hands. Jonathan Webley 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
forcrudate v. replying to another inconsistently with or irrelevantly to their subject matter (use it in your every day speech please)
Thanx for telling me about the urban dictionary. Do you know anywhere else I can propagate words and what does propagate mean? I want to be Webster when I grow up. How come he got to make words and I don't
I deserve to make words more than Webster I tell you, I would think of everything that needs to be named and named it I tell you. I want to make my own dictionary
Can you magically transform me into Merriam Webster, you know, so I can make a new dictionary called Craig Joseph's dictionary 188.8.131.52 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for the notification for the nom. I'd be happy to serve the community this way, but it looks like you have some well-qualified people who are more active on en.wt than I have been recently. So I've just declined. - Amgine/talk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Dave, welcome back! — Vildricianus 08:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I recall reading today that this word has been added to the new Chambers. Unfortunately I didnt bring the newspaper home and cant check, but it seems that Chambers' new dictionary will be out shortly and this is one of the words to be listed. Andrew massyn 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did you? --184.108.40.206 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)