User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

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



Moving the citation from the adjective to the noun doesn't make any sense to me. You mention feedback - from whom? Donnanz (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

[1]. He is right: the cite (if it is one) seems to be using the verbal noun of pioneer (to go before and prepare or open a way for; to act as pioneer) and not the adjective pioneering (involving new ideas or methods). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but anyway I will "solve" the problem by removing the quote. Donnanz (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    pioneering seems to be a full adjective now. The cite is not an unambiguous example, but it seems OK to me as of adjective use. We could use better examples, but I'm out of time at the moment. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    But why is it an example of that sense? Fridtjof Nansen and Roald Amundsen are famous for record-breaking polar explorations, not for creating new methods and ideas. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    I fear that the definition of the adjective may be all too brief, and doesn't take certain meanings into account. Donnanz (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Norway quote lacks context at the moment. It needs an additional sentence, or at least an additional prepositional phrase. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Why do I feel so good for adding this with citations? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding citations, typing them up and formatting them properly is irritating, but not as much as seeing an inclusion-worthy term being removed because of their lack. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Does this pass WT:BRAND? --WikiTiki89 13:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It’s in the grey area. I lean towards yes. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any gray area. Is it because they are manufactured by different companies? --WikiTiki89 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
All the citations (and yes, there are more that I could add) have quotations from sources having nothing to do with the Beyblade toyline or franchise, yet mention the Beyblade toy. Because of this, I think this is an entry that should stay. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh and by the way Ungoliant, would it interest you to add the Portuguese entry for the Beyblade toy? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The Beyblade toy is part of the Beyblade toy line. I may be wrong, but I always understood WT:BRAND to mean that the word must refer generically to any similar product. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that BRAND isn’t even relevant to generalised trademarks. If a trademark has been generalised so it refers to a type of product, regardless of the actual brand, it has become a typical noun like any other. But this is not the case of Beyblade.
In any case, BRAND does apply to things like Mazda (ety 2), Ferrari and iPod, that are not generalised trademarks (at least that’s not what their definitions say). As for being in the grey area, none of the cites RSY added to Beyblade violate the five no-nos listed at WT:BRAND, which leaves us with the highly subjective goal of determining whether it has entered the lexicon. There is no rule that you can use to determine that for sure, only things that make one lean towards one opinion or another. For me, one of these things is the fact that the plural is commonly used, another is using the term without directly indicating what it is (thus taking it for granted that it is part of the reader’s lexicon), which occurs in the first and third of RSY’s cites.
Still, I wouldn’t say Beyblade is definitely in the English lexicon. Certainly not to the extent that Ferrari is. I hope I made sense, I suck at writing what’s in my mind. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. --WikiTiki89 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at my accomplishment!!!![edit]

I successfully added something very useful to Wiktionary. All the templates. See spille#Danish, kolonisere#Danish, and spamme#Danish for examples. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your efforts to clear out the WT:RFV page! - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m surprised no one complained about anything from the latest batch of closings. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing translations[edit]


Are you able to refresh User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/ru, please, after the next DB dump? I have a request about the format, though. Like before, pls only include terms where there is no Russian translation at all. Could you use "#" instead of "*" to make it a numbered list? Also, are you able to exclude capitalised words (proper nouns) and words with spaces (solids only)? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Yes check.svg Done. I had the program exclude proper nouns. Do you want me to exclude every word that begins with a capital letter, even adjectives like Germanic? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It's OK. The list doesn't have that many demonyms but I would rather exclude words like Marathi, since it has at least one Russian translation. It must be hard to that, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I updated the list. Now it excludes entries even if their only Russian translations are of proper nouns. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you're rollback was in error, but it was unhelpful[edit]

Please enlighten me. 02:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Might as well on this page, too.:-) 02:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I moved your comment to WT:Tea Room#I saw something on Youtube. Where do I discuss it?. How did you end up editing that page anyway? — Ungoliant (falai) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
My ig'nance. I'm not used to this site. Thanks for the move. I tried the Information Desk. I had to do a CAPTCHA 3 times. and I saw it on the template. My computer might be at fault. Leh. Thanks for the quick response. :-)

So the Tea Room is for this sort of thing. If so, great, as I have a few other extra definitions for words. 02:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There’s also WT:Requested entries (English), if you just want to request a word. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
and it seems that I can edit it, unlike the Tea Room—where I can't give a defense. I'm not looking to to introduce a new term (I note the red lines), but add a definition to an existing one. 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually you can edit the Tea Room. The page WT:Tea Room itself is just a hub transcluding monthly subpages (i.e. Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/July), which are unprotected. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. :-) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Instead of removing the definition, why didn't you just fix it? I have readded the definition, but replaced the noun template and removed the etymology. Please do not remove the definition again. Purplebackpack89 23:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but when the editing window opened I was taken aback by the amount of mistakes. People with autopatroller rights are expected to know how to format things correctly.
There is still a mistake, by the way: it is defined as a common noun but you are calling it a proper noun. Can you fix that? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And you placed the entry below the IW. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it's using a proper noun template. Neither the header nor the template use common noun. Purplebackpack89 01:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Are you going to fix that? The definition you added is that of a common noun, not a proper noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not. In the time you have spent whining about me fixing it, you could've easily fixed it yourself. Seems to me you care more about proving a point to me than actually fixing articles. Purplebackpack89 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I could, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to improve your reputation as an editor. Bad idea. Next time I will do that then, since you are not interested in fixing you own mistakes. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, it's capitalized. Nouns that are capitalized are proper nouns. "Oso" is a proper noun for the same reasons "Democrat" is a proper noun. Purplebackpack89 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: I'm thinking that we might need to remove your autopatroller flag if you both refuse to stop making edits that need fixing, and refuse to fix edits you've made. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89:, There was a vote on that, and there was a consensus for me to keep it. There's been one controversial edit since. And I was not in error labeling it as a proper noun; it is a proper noun for the same reasons that Democrat is a proper noun. This is another baiting attempt by Ungoliant, who frankly needs to be banned from interacting with me because his interactions are clearly unproductive. There is nothing in my edits that warrants the entry being removed, or my autopatrol flag being removed. Purplebackpack89 16:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Democrat is not a proper noun. Also, you put the quotations in the wrong order, among other things. --WikiTiki89 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Now your are just POV pushing, dude. You claim there's some discussion backing you up. I want links to this discussion. I have started a BP discussion of my own. BTW, you and CodeCat and Ungoliant keep clamoring that those things aren't proper nouns, but you need to be better at why. I can point to a lot of things that are proper nouns that can exist in both the singular and the plural. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Stop spreading this discussion around! You have already brought it to the BP, so let's discuss it there. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Democrat" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Ditto for "Oso" (A supporter of the Bear Flag revolt in California). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And now for something completely different[edit]

After this archiving the markup size of RFV dropped below 250K, and I think the credit goes mostly to you for closing all those nominations. We badly need someone besides DP to run the bureaucracy once in a while. Much appreciated.

Now, if there were a way to effortlessly put a picture of a kitten with a half-hearted congratulatory label on your talk page, you would probably feel much more satisfied, would you not? :P Keφr 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as bureaucracy goes, you also deserve praise for the amazing awa. I’ve done en-masse archiving of RFVs (or was it RFDs?) before and it wasn’t fun at all. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Excessive blocks[edit]

Why did you block for three years? In my impression, spammers usually post only once and never come back. Blocking for this long does not accomplish anything, and may even stop useful contributors if the IP is reassigned. At least you should have left account creation enabled. Keφr 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is quite the opposite of yours. I used to block them for the same amount of time as typical vandals, but they often came back and started advertising again. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe three years is excessive. Do you know how often IPs get reassigned in average? (Actually 3 years was my guess). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Depending on ISP, it may even be a day. GeoIP says the IP is Indian… Indic… umm, from India. Tracerouting and reverse-DNS fails. I guess the original user is already gone. Keφr 20:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This IP has been active on WP as apparently the same person since November of last year. The 2007 edit here matches the interests of the WP contributor in a very general way, but I'm not sure it's the same person. My take on this is we have an ordinary WP user who contributes actual content to WP, but is unscrupulous about promotion of his/herself and his/her school- not exactly hard-core (judging by their edit at {{infobox}}, pretty clueless, too). Just blocking them once might be enough. At any rate, I tend to treat a year as forever when it comes to IPs. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)