User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

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

Archives:


Buzulkuşu[edit]

AviBase (The World Bird Database) contains this word. Another resource is the Russian dictionary of Pamukkale University [1]. If you search by Google, you may find results from some dictionaries which are very famous in Turkey (like TurEng, YeminliSözlük, SesliSözlük, etc.). --176.219.166.20 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and the other guy keeps saying it’s a made-up word. Add three WT:CFI-conforming citations or it won’t be readded. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was want to remove at https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diuca_speculifera&action=history the "buzulkuşu" word but I have been blocked :( Can you remove that "buzulkuşu" word and my block please? --123snake45 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I can’t. I’m not an admin at Wikispecies. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
They are cheating again! They tell lie buzlaqquşu now too... --123snake45 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You’ve already done what needed to be done by RFVing the entry. Thanks. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Flood flag[edit]

Hi UM, could you please give me the flood flag for a while? I'm going to add lots of Spanish adjective forms (without a bot, by the way, it is using WT:ACCEL). And also a few Portuguese ones, especially for you. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but I suspect it may be removed by someone else. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
And one more time, if you'd be so kind. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Mentor[edit]

I have been contributing to the Wauja Wiktionary for a few months. I just learned today that there is a mentoring program for new users, and I would be very grateful for some mentoring help. Last August, you kindly helped me with some technical issues. At this time, I would like advice regarding how to meet the Criteria for Inclusion when the language you are working with has an oral tradition, and not a written one.

Wauja is an Arawak language spoken by about 400 indigenous people in the Parque Indígena do Xingu in Central Brazil. A generation ago, the Wauja had no familiarity with writing at all. Today, they have established village schools where their children are learning to read and write in both Portuguese and Wauja. However, at this time, there are no published works authored by native speakers of the Wauja language. I would like some advice regarding how I can contribute to the Wauja-English Wiktionary and follow community CFI norms, even though there are currently no publications in Wauja. Indigenous languages of Brazil are natural languages, and deserve to be included in Wiktionary. If the CFI rules require at least one attestation from a written source, then for languages that have no publications with ISBNs, perhaps we could allow transcripts of audio and video recordings? If that is not a good solution, I hope we can find a better one. That is why I am writing you, so you can perhaps give me guidance regarding how Wauja entries can be added and still meet community CFI norms.

I am planning to return to the Wauja community in Brazil this summer to train a team of young Wauja schoolteachers in contributing to the Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary site, as they are bilingual in Wauja and Portuguese. These Wauja teachers have been struggling with the task of creating and maintaining manuscripts of their dictionary in Microsoft Word, in addition to printing and distributing them periodically at great expense. They were thrilled and delighted when I told them they could build a Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary, and thereby do it all online. Recently Chuck Entz suggested I bring the problem of CFIs for languages without publications to the Beer Parlour for discussion. I followed his advice, but I feel out of my depth. I simply want to contribute to the Wauja Wiktionary, train the Wauja to participate in building a Wauja-Portuguese site themselves, and abide by community norms. If the CFI norms exclude all natural languages that lack a body of publications, I hope we can modify the norms for such languages, until they do have publications. Above all, I think it is important that all human languages be included. Thanks! Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Emi-Ireland: Well, the mentoring project has kind of been abandoned for a couple of years, and it never really kicked off to begin with. Regardless, I will be glad to help.
  • The most important thing that you have to keep in mind is that the English Wiktionary does not aim to be a primary source of information. I know this ends up limiting our ability to include words in languages with limited written traditions, but it also prevents made-up stuff from being presented as real words. If you had to patrol the recent changes page, you’d be surprised by the amount of rubbish that people try to add every day. And it’s not only people making stuff up, it’s also people who end up adding incorrect information because they want to help out with languages they don’t understand very well. Just this week the community has run across some Spanish nonsense from a user who got blocked over two years.
  • So far, you’re doing the right thing by making that proposal in the BP. It will probably require a vote in order to alter the policy. Until then, know that audio and video documentation is also acceptable, but they are subject to the same restriction as writing: they have to be published; some video on Youtube won’t do.
  • Didn’t you mention there was a Bible published in Wauja? You can use that as well.
  • There are published scientific articles about Wauja, they can also be used to cite words:
    • Waurá e Mehináku: um breve estudo comparativo (Corbera 2012)
    • Uma análise fonológica das listas de palavras Wauja (Arawák) (Postigo 2011)
    • As línguas Waurá e Mehináku do Brasil Central (Corbera Mori 2005)
    • A nasalidade de vogais em Waurá e Mehináku (Mori 2009)
  • Perhaps the best solution for you is to request the creation of a Wauja Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This way you and the Wauja community can have more control over what should be included. Read this page: meta:Language committee/Handbook (requesters) for instructions on how to do that. I warn that it usually takes months before such requests come to fruition. Even when it does, I ask that you don’t give up on us! We are very happy with your contributions, which is why we have turned a mostly blind eye to the citability issues of your entries.
  • One last thing: when you teach the guy how to use the Portuguese Wiktionary, keep in mind that different dictionaries have different rules and different layout structures.
Cheers. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Ungoliant, for your prompt and very thorough reply. You've given me lots of good information. I will consider it all carefully. For now, I'd like to ask exactly what would qualify as "publishing" a video or audio recording? Would having it deposited at a public archive, such as the Smithsonian Institution or the Library of Congress be considered publishing? If not, what would be considered publishing?
Thank you for the sources. It was kind of you to look them up. These are my colleagues, whom I respect. As a rule, however, I don't use snippets collected out of context by non-native speakers unless they are checked by native speakers. I apply this rule to my own field notes, as well.
There are two words currently in the Wauja Wiktionary that I know to be incorrect. They were posted by a Wiktionarian, who quite reasonably took them from a superb reference book written by a scholar who is a world-renowned authority on Arawak languages. I personally think her work on Arawak languages is the best there is. Obviously a reliable source. The problem is that these two Wauja words were collected by someone else, who only briefly visited the Wauja and did not speak the language. These two words were later included in the excellent book on Amazonian languages by the Arawak scholar, who has learned several Arawak languages herself. She just doesn't happen to speak Wauja. She published what little was available at the time on Wauja. In any case, I don't plan to try to get these two mangled words corrected on Wiktionary. Instead, when the Wauja themselves are trained to participate in Wiktionary, they will address it, I am sure. They will wince when they see one of the words, which is an iconic Arawak word, familiar from sacred stories and everyday life, and spoken many times a day.
To my knowledge, there is still no published bible in Wauja, though the project is underway, and some young Wauja receive wages for working on the translation. However, this is not a suitable source for a Wauja dictionary, because it is merely a translation from another language and another culture. The Wauja have their own language, culture, and religion. They have their own stories of creation, and their own moral system. If we had no sources of Wauja literature spoken by Wauja storytellers, then it would make sense to use a translated Christian bible, full of translated foreign concepts, as a source. But we have excellent, lengthy, transcribed audio and video recordings of Wauja literature spoken by Wauja storytellers. (If you give me your email address, I can send you a link to a BBC video of a Wauja Storyteller. Note this is not a print publication; it is a video.)
So, when I say that Wauja lacks publications, I am referring to print publications authored by native speakers. (There are oral "publications" the Wauja themselves would recognize as authoritative: recordings of articulate elders performing oral texts.) If you have a choice between:
(1) A published source containing out-of-context snippets collected by someone who did not speak the language, versus
(2) An unpublished transcript of a lengthy oration by a native speaker who is a respected storyteller or ceremonial authority, along with the original audio or video recording
The second option is BY FAR more valuable, more informative, more authoritative. Ask any native speaker of an endangered language, and they will tell you that is merely common sense. After all, would you take English lessons from someone who couldn't speak English themselves? Who couldn't carry on even the most basic conversation in English? The danger of assuming anything that's published is authoritative is exactly the same as that you cite above: "people who end up adding incorrect information because they want to help out with languages they don’t understand very well."
A final note: in the relations between members of powerful societies and less-powerful societies there is a long and unfortunate history of domination and appropriation. We should be very conscious of the many ways in which speakers of minority and endangered languages have been marginalized and silenced, defined by the OTHER, and not allowed to define themselves.
For all these reasons, it is intellectually and morally important that we ask ourselves: Who is the authority regarding Wauja language, a native speaker of Wauja, or someone who is not Wauja, and who may not even speak or understand Wauja at all? Is the printed word so authoritative that it can silence the voices of an entire people who deserve to define themselves? That's why I want to train the Wauja to participate in Wiktionary themselves, so they can correct the clumsy, if well-intentioned, mistakes the rest of us have made. Emi-Ireland (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I’m not sure what counts as published as far as non-textual media goes. AFAIK a situation like this has never been discussed by the community.
But you’re probably safe with anything that is being sold (i.e. DVDs of films, series, documentaries, etc.) or archived by organisations (i.e. SIL’s audio recordings), but not stuff that is only “archived” by an individual (i.e. a personal VHS tape).
As for the Bible, it doesn’t have to be only source (once it gets published). There’s no need to exclude words for foreign concepts, and it’s not like every word in it will be for foreign concepts.
By the way, if you are 100% sure the two words you mentioned are incorrect, please state your case at the WT:RFD page. Even though we place high value on published material, we don’t want to replicate their errors.
Equinox just explained to me that I don't need to provide a source to post a note on the Talk page for a lemma, so I have just done so. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I don't think the words need to be deleted. The translations are correct, they were simply transcribed incorrectly. Particularly kamo, which had the wrong vowel and an accent placed on the wrong syllable. Once source materials are available for these words, examples can be added. Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ungoliant (falai) 23:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Obrigada, Ungoliant! If you think the Wiktionary community might consider recordings that are "archived by organisations" as "published," I will make sure to do that ASAP.
Re: the errors, Unfortunately, for these words, I don't currently have any suitable sources. It's in my head, which is not a source. I could easily get an email from a native speaker (which I think would be authoritative), but I have been asked not to use email or Facebook IMs, even if written by native speakers. I think the Wiktionary community should consider this issue, as native speakers of endangered languages rarely have access to university presses and other major publication venues. I think that communications written by literate native speakers of LWTs, if duly deposited with an archiving organization, should be considered acceptable as sources, but that is for the Wiktionary community to decide.
Pending specific guidance from the Wiktionary community, I have lots of reference material based on recordings of native speakers that have been transcribed, with the transcriptions carefully checked by literate native speakers. I feel that it's appropriate for me to contribute that. On the other hand, if I have an idea in my head about a word, but no source, particularly since I am not a native speaker, then I believe I really should get a source Wiktionary would accept and not muddy the waters with an unsourced entry. Given the issues surrounding attestation for LWTs, I want to provide proper sources for anything I contribute. I do believe audio recordings of native speakers, with transcriptions verified by literate native speakers, are among the best possible sources, but the Wiktionary community may not agree. If the community can decide exactly what sources are acceptable, I will provide them. If emails from native speakers are not acceptable, and only an audio or video recording that has been deposited at an archive will do, then I will obtain the recording when I return to Brazil in September 2015, deposit the transcribed recording at an archive as appropriate, and make the change.
Above all, I want to abide as strictly as I can by Wiktionary community norms, particularly because I have told the Wauja I am starting a Wauja-English Wiktionary site that I will show them in September. This September, people will be traveling long distances by motorboat from two satellite villages to the main village — just to discuss Wiktionary. From elders to young university-educated schoolteachers, everyone is very excited about the project. I don't want to do anything that would undermine that project. The plan is to (1) build a Wauja-English Wiktionary, already underway (2) build a Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary, to be initiated after September by the Wauja themselves with my help, and that of any Portuguese-speakers who want to help them, as well, and (3) eventually build a Wauja-Wauja Wiktionary site, as you suggest. Perhaps that would come about in 2016. We have to train a seasoned team of Wauja Wiktionarians first. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lock[edit]

The Obama page is locked. Please add Obomber as a synonym. —This unsigned comment was added by 89.242.86.7 (talk).

Is this Pass a Method? Before I do that, tell me: isn’t Obomber derogatory? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It is, but you can tag it as derogatory under the "sense" template. 89.242.86.73 22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

sniper[edit]

See discussion on definition talk page that is the best place to have it. WritersCramp (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Aprender alemão[edit]

Você tem interesse em aprender alemão? Conheço um curso de nível iniciante a intermediário por rádio chamado Deutsch, Warum Nicht?, que foi criado por uma famosa rádio da Alemanha em colaboração com o Instituto Goethe. Consiste em ouvir a sequência da lição (que conta uma história e introduz conceitos gramáticos) e depois ler uma ou duas páginas comentando sobre. Se quiser, posso te enviar o material completo do curso por e-mail. - Alumnum (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado. Vou dar uma olhada. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

raptor[edit]

Hi there,

your revert in raptor of my splitting the translations with those of bird of prey is unfortunate, in either of these two cases:

  1. I split them because several languages have both terms as well: "bird of prey" ("predatory bird"), and "raptor" ("bird of theft/catch/grab/snatch").
  2. if this must be reverted, then you should also revert my work in bird of prey, else many translations will be lost for good.

--Jerome Potts (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that raptor and bird of prey are not synonyms? If so, the definition of raptor needs to be updated. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they aren't synonyms. I do, however, find it interesting that other languages also have both ways of naming them: the "bird of prey"/"predatory bird" way, and the "bird of catch" way. Therefore, i propose to keep the two distinct, like such:
English raptor bird of prey
French rapace oiseau de proie
German Raubvogel Greifvogel
Slovene ujeda ptica roparica
Other languages seem to use one of these two ways of naming them; that is, some call them "bird of prey", while others "bird of catch". --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reichlich[edit]

You know that reich means rich and lich means ly? richly. It's correct. —This unsigned comment was added by MontChevalier (talkcontribs).

That doesn’t mean that the words formed with -ly will be accurate translations of those formed with -lich. In this case, reichlich is an adjective, while richly is an adverb. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
MontChevalier, -lich does not mean -ly: they are cognates, not translation-equivalents. --Thnidu (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

расправа[edit]

Thank you very much for pointing out the issue over wether it was a verb or noun! How did this come to your attention if you don't mind me asking? Davski (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As an administrator, I have to patrol the recent edits to make sure they’re OK. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My own Wiktionary[edit]

I made my own Wiktionary. Just for the hell of it. It's so much fun for me to use: http://wikitoslav.monathevampirewiki.org/wiki/Wikitoslav:Frumpsida

Click the random page button or search for stuff if you want to see its content. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 00:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For your conlang only? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, there is a line you can place in the MW configuration file to allow lowercase pages. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm. I didn't know that. I thought that this was only able to be set up for Wiktionary. Thanks for letting me know. I'm trying to fix it now. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it didn't work. :( So I can't do that...

I tried what it said and it messed the site up. I might do it later. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 01:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You have to add
$wgCapitalLinks = false;
to a file called LocalSettings.php — Ungoliant (falai) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I did this, adding it to the bottom of the page on LocalSettings.php , and it made my site just show up blank and so I had to delete the line and put it back to the way it was. :( NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Related terms[edit]

Entendido. Agradeço pelo aviso. - Alumnum (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Servir[edit]

Could you check these edits quickly please? Originated from an anon IP and I'm not 100% sure if they are correct. Obrigado. Jberkel (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There’s something very strange going on: the diff of his edit to Module:pt-conj/data/-ir shows a removal of 2,245 bytes, but actually content was added.
Anyway, I fixed the incorrect verb forms. Module:pt-conj/data/-servir can be deleted, right? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, noticed the weird diff as well, looks like a mw-bug. And the extra module can be deleted. Ta! Jberkel (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template help?[edit]

I am embarrassed to say that a side effect of my wikibreak is that I really don't remember how to fix template issues that are not exceedingly obvious. Would you be so kind as to solve my issues? Currently I'm having trouble understanding why {{cy-noun}} is misbehaving (see WT:GP#Template:cy-noun behaving oddly) and why entries like jiko#Swahili are not categorised into Category:Swahili ma class nouns. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Both issues have been fixed, I think. If you could check some Swahili nouns as well to make sure they’re OK that would be great. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it works. Thanks, Ungoliant. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW, does this mean you’re becoming active again? — Ungoliant (falai) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been pseudoactive for some time now, but in fits and spurts. That won't really change, I'm afraid, but I'm trying to make some headway with Swahili again, so who knows. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If you’re interested, I have some dump-parsing tools to help with editing:
  • missing translations per priority;
  • Semi-automated entries (similar to t-bot, but you get to tweak the wikicode before saving the page);
  • Semi-automated alternative-form entries.
Ungoliant (falai) 17:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

semi-automated[edit]

Hi again UM. Could you fix me up with a list of Spanish words to be added semi-automatedly? I know you refused last time, but perhaps I have caught you in a good mood today! --Type56op9 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m in an OK mood today. Let’s see if your attention-paying skill improived since your last attempt. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Type56op9: [2]. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I put it in a .txt file, saved it as UTF-8. Remind me, what do I do now with it? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Save as .htm — Ungoliant (falai) 14:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks. I'll see if Spanish can pull ahead of Portuguese in the competition to get the most entries! --Type56op9 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Lol, I'm wf and dont pay attention...--Type56op9 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hehe! — Ungoliant (falai) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm almost done with the list you gave me. Can I get the next instalment? Starting with lowercase a, if possible. --Recónditos (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Let’s wait until your recent batch of edits is mostly patrolled. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Olá Ungoliat, thanks for cleaning up after some of my edits, I've already learned a lot. Wiktionary is such an amazing resource, I hope I'm not turning it into "O Novo Guia da Conversação em Portuguez" :) Jberkel (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado pelo seu interesse em editar português. Você não sabe o quão deprimente que era ser o único editor polífico da língua.
Aliás, o que é esse guia? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
É um guia de conversação português-inglês publicado em 1855. Mas o autor do guia, Pedro Carolino, não falou inglês. Então é um guia muito engraçado, é disponível online (só o texto inglês). Acho que há uma versão com a parte portuguesa no Google Books. Jberkel (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Block of Dan Polansky[edit]

I consider your block of User:Dan Polansky to be inappropriate, as you were edit-warring with him when the block occurred. The block should have been done by an UNINVOLVED administrator, and probably both he AND you should have been blocked. Purplebackpack89 20:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And I should care about what a troll like you thinks because...? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You definitely should care about what a sysop like me thinks. And it is highly inappropriate to respond to a valid question like this with a personal attack. -- Liliana 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What you think I care about, and if you want to unblock DP, knock yourself out. It’s the trolls that I ignore. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, I'm not a troll. I'm an experienced Wiktionary and Wikipedia editor who considers a particular administrative action of yours to be inappropriate, and your response to my concern shocking. Purplebackpack89 20:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to stop edit-warring without blocking users? Mind you, I'm not enamoured with either party, being called crazy by this user recently. But I'm not taking exception to it. Donnanz (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Absolutely: telling the other party that he should stop what he is doing (which I did and DP chose to ignore). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    A request from a year and a half ago isn't particularly germane. You should have asked him again, and if he continued to edit-war, stepped aside and let another admin handle it. I frankly don't understand why you edit-warred at all: whether or not an article has a particular tag or not seems to be a really minor issue. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    What, do you think DP forgot about the warning? Do you think he forgot that he responded to it and pretended to ignore it? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Seems plausible after that length of time. But even if he didn't, that still doesn't make you an uninvolved administrator and therefore the only type of person who should be doing any blocking. If anything, all it does is prove how involved you are. Purplebackpack89 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Proving how involving I am? Damn, you caught me PBP. I was trying to hide it. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    You act as though being involved doesn't matter. It kind of does. Purplebackpack89 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RFP and Czech entries[edit]

I register here my opposition to user's Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV entering {{rfp}} to Czech entries, and thereby either making them look ugly or wasting unsuspecting newbie editor time on what is likely going to be replaced by templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think that {{rfp}} should not be used, then either nominate it for deletion or forever hold your peace. —CodeCat 14:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The extent to which the use of RFP is meaningful depends on the language in question. I am known for my opposition of RFP, RFE and similar in general; deleting the template would be my preferred treatment of them. However, I acknowledge that most editors probably do not want to get rid of RFP, RFE and the like altogether. Nonetheless, in case of Czech and Polish, asking other editors to manually add IPA is to ask them to waste their time, which is less than nice, to put it mildly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dan Polansky. For most languages IPA transcription is not important at all. There are a very few instances in Russian and Ukrainian, when words are read contrary to the rules, and in Belorussian all words are spellt as they are read. The same is very true for the Romance languages, and even for Hebrew, the transliteration will perfectly do well. Alexdubr (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of IPA is to show the pronunciation, not to show the pronunciation when someone knowledgeable enough with the orthography can deduce it. Not all Wiktionary users are familiar with the spelling of every single language. —CodeCat 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
When manually entered IPA gets replaced with automatic template such as {{pl-IPA}}, used e.g. in krowa, the effort of those who have previously entered IPA manually will have been wasted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? —CodeCat 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you asking why is limiting waste of editor time relevant? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm asking why it's relevant that replacing {{IPA}} with {{pl-IPA}} is relevant to adding {{rfp}} to entries. —CodeCat 15:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There are only two ways of getting rid of RFP: removing it and serving it. For removing it, I was blocked by user Ungoliant. To serve it, editors need to waste their time that could be better employed elsewhere. The use of their time to fill IPA is considered a waste by me because of the extreme predictability, and the likelihood that their work is going to be replaced by a template. Clear now? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's likely that the work will be replaced by a template, why not just add that template straight off? —CodeCat 15:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Because I am not into pronunciations. No one can command my scarce resources; everyone can only command their own scarce resources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So then don't remove the request, and let someone else handle it. —CodeCat 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So that someone else can waste their time, great. Not really inconsistent with CodeCat's other behavior, such as that discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/December#Mass or indiscriminate adding of RFE - requests_for_etymology which had to be limited by creating Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I will continue to use {{rfp}} and {{rfquote}}. If I see you removing any I will block you again for a longer period of time. — Ungoliant (falai)
I submit that your threat and your behavior is not based on consensus, and that you should be desysopped. Desysopping is unlikely, so too bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
My best hope is that other editors will join me in rebellion against tyranny. Those who support this case can help by removing {{rfp}} from alibistický. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
My best hope is that other editors will join me in recognising you as a threat to Wiktionary. Your constant attempts to make bureaucratic processes last longer than necessary, your harassing and intimidation of users (beginners and veterans alike) and your incessant bickering and attempts to prevent improvement paint you as another concern troll.
You got away with intimidating ReidAA away from Wiktionary, and with publicly accusing another user of being him. Next time you pull off something like that, I’ll make sure you don’t get away so easily. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: "You got away with intimidating ReidAA": That is a baseless personal attack. I did not intimidate ReidAA. I undid his unconsensual changes that I opposed; that is not intimidation. I have the right, for instance, to readd spaces after "#" that he removed; my readdition of these spaces is not intimidation. By contrast, Ungoliant's edit warring on alibistický followed by blocking me is a genuine intimidation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, most of the above is a baseless personal attack; there is very little that is accurate there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You’re not going to fool any of the active users, Polansky. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCa Why would anyone be interested in IPA for a language they don't study? Even if there are a handful of such, the amount of work does not seem worth while. Alexdubr (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I see no problems with pronunciation requests. All languages may use IPA pronunciations, including "easy" ones. Editors don't need to add pronunciation, if they don't want to, others may do it instead. I don't find the request "ugly" either but this can always be improved further. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Calabrian[edit]

Why did you revert the change? South Calabrian is in fact attached to the Sicilian language. The Neapolitan family extent of Calabrian is from Cosenza to the north. --Tanet (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You’re right. I’ll restore your edit. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tanet: could you rewrite the proper noun definition of Calabrian? As it stands it’s not very good and is probably inaccurate. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

any idea what's wrong here?[edit]

asteróideJberkel (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the template you're trying to use? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Never mind- I found it. It's {{European Portuguese form of}}- not "spelling" of. Fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it - I didn't write the entry, just found it broken like that. Jberkel (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The information, for one. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

paleemos[edit]

Hi, is the term "paleemos" of palear a real Portuguese verb form? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Real? Yes. Citable by itself? No. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering whether bético is comparable or not. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparability is 100% context-based in Portuguese. It’s comparable in situations where it can be used in comparisons and not comparable where it can’t. In most situations, bético can’t. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

maailman[edit]

Why do you want quotations added to this entry? I don't think I have seen quotations in any other inflected form- entries. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So it can be featured as a FWOTD. The quotations can be added to the lemma, if you prefer. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a bit silly to put examples of each separate form on the page for that form. I come across that in entries occasionally and always remove it, moving them to the lemma page where they'll actually be found. —CodeCat 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
In general I agree, but in some situations it’s worthwhile to cite specific forms. Rare irregular forms, plural of normally uncountable words and nonstandard forms for example. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
But that's citing, to attest the existence of a form. I was referring to usage examples; it wouldn't make much sense to provide a usage example of were on that page rather than on be. —CodeCat 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added one quote for every sense of tuima plus a quote from a linguistic article that discusses the word. One might argue that such an article is a mention, not use, but at least in this case it serves as a proof of existence of the two contradicting senses. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! You’re the best, Hekaheka. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:given name[edit]

Thank you for the eq= parameter, and for your work cleaning up Portuguese name entries. I edited the documentation page to take out some outdated info, but the changes don't show in the Template:given name page. I'm not an admin, so could you possibly fix it?--Makaokalani (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Oops, taking back my request. It's fine now, it just took some minutes obviously.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes edits to transcluded pages take a while to cascade. You can speed it up by doing null edits (saving the page without changing anything), but you can’t do that to protected pages. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

European vs Brazilian português[edit]

Thought you might find this interesting, I've just extracted a list of European / Brazilian pt words from Wikipedia. Jberkel (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately the Portuguese Wikipedia is a very untrustworthy resource, especially in their claims of what is European and what is Brazilian. I can tell that a lot of items on that list are generalisations, plain wrong or fail to take the latest spelling agreements into account. Examples: barracão/galpão, bases de dados/bancos de dados, batista/baptista.
If you’re interested in the subject, the Priberam dictionary has a very comprehensive documentation of what is used where. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, was wondering about the quality of the data. If anything it's a good start for research, I'll make sure to cross check with some more reliable resources. Jberkel (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert on aligátor[edit]

I had removed the New Latin word because I thought it was a loanword directly from English, not from the New Latin. And now you reverted that. Is there any evidence from the word coming from the New Latin word? Then I'll settle. Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That’s what the Aulete dictionary says:
  • [F.: Do lat. cient. gên. Alligator]
  • [Origin: From the Scientific Latin genus Alligator]
Ungoliant (falai) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
alligator in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 says that French and Portuguese took the term from English, but more recent French and Portuguese sources would be better, obviously. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It’s common practice in Portuguese etymology to ignore the genus name as a step in the etymological chain. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, the genus name still came from the English word. But I reworded that "New Latin" statement again now to make it clear that it came from the genus. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for the blunt way in which I responded to your edit. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

sinônimos[edit]

Pode‐se dizer «mercearia» em vez de «loja»? --Romanophile (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Em alguns casos. Mercearias focam em itens de uso diário, como comida, sabonete, giletes, etc. Lojas podem ser mais especializadas. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

enus.[edit]

Hi Ungoliant. Can you make out from these quotations of what Portuguese term enus. is an abbreviation, perchance? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it’s enunciados, but I’ll have to do some more investigation before I can create the entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, it’s enumerações numeradas (numbered enumerations). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Is the entry I've created for the abbreviation OK? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The entry is OK. But I suspect it is a neologism of the author; I’ll try to look for more cites. — Ungoliant (falai)
Thank you, and thanks for creating enumerações and enumeração. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Number of languages with entries[edit]

It's presumably based on Category:Lemmas by language, which has 1559 subcategories. —CodeCat 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another reason not to use 1560. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are still some entries around that don't use {{head}}, though. So it's possible there are a few missing. —CodeCat 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly are you telling me this? Are you unhappy with displaying “over 1550 languages”? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

pro[edit]

You reverted my edit on pro, but I disagree with that. I made the edit because there's currently no page called "in favour of", while "in favor of" exists. I wanted to remove the redlink in pro but I don't know how to properly make a British English equivalent of in favor of, so I just changed the link on pro to go to in favor of. I won't revert your reversion unless we reach an agreement, because I don't want it to look like I'm edit warring. AutisticCatnip (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You want an alt-form entry. I'll make it. Equinox 05:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, per Wiktionary:About_English#Regional_differencesWT:AEN, the link should be to "in favor of" because it was created first, so I'm going to revert the Italian entry on "pro" to "in favor of". AutisticCatnip (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@AutisticCatnip: “the link should be to "in favor of" because it was created first”: that’s not what the page says at all.
Wiktionary is a work in progress and we don’t have every page we want yet, but that’s no excuse to Americanise links. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the best solution to this issue. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just use both forms at once. It won’t kill anybody. --Romanophile (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty irritating though. I always use US spellings because an arbitrary norm is better than chaos. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it chaotic? Just use both forms in a definition when possible. Here’s an example: couleur#French. I don’t see what the big deal is. --Romanophile (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:IPA and Template:audio[edit]

These should only categorize in the main namespace, WR:RFV is in Category:Northern Sami terms with IPA pronunciation. I'm only asking you because your in the recent changes and you know how to fix it. My WT:GP post got ignored. Thanks, Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

IPA also needs to be categorised in the Appendix namespace. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I’ve done {{audio}}, but I’ll leave {{IPA}} to someone else. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

omG thank you so much[edit]

Thank you so much Adjutor101 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Manana [Thank You][edit]

Linguistic Barnstar.png The Linguistic Barnstar
Dear and most helpful Ungoliant , thank you for all your contributions to Pashto language. You have helped me in my dream to preserve my mother tongue. May God keep on blessing you. With regards and best wishes, Adjutor101 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A bit bombastic for just a couple of module edits, but I’ll take it. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hopefully this will be the last time I will be bothering you. Am so deeply sorry and deeply thankful. I need help with this: Error messages are appearing here:

And the information I added to this:

Adjutor101 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101: Yes check.svg Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
omG your a legend. B-O-S-S Adjutor101 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel so ashamed now but I need your help again with this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:ps-conj-simp-irregular-w/o-peculiar3rdperson Adjutor101 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Someone fixed it, thank you so much though Adjutor101 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Star[edit]

You have recently reverted my edit to this page. I believe this was completely uncalled for.

The term "star" exists in Avestan (meaning star in English) [Peterson, J. (1995). Dictionary of most common Avesta words (p. 86).]

It was rendered as "starag" in Middle Persian [Mackenzie, D. (1971). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (p. 77).]

This was later garbled into setaré in Modern Persian. Compare to other Iranian languages such as ster in Kurdish, стъалы in Ossetian, etc.Grinevitski (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • <butting in> Avestan nouns are not written in the Latin script. See the contents of Category:Avestan nouns for how they should be presented here. </butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FWOTD[edit]

I set FWOTDs for today and tomorrow. Any idea why {{was fwotd}} isn't showing up properly at xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Angr. {{was fwotd}} was updated so the text only shows up after the actual day of featuring. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

peitinho[edit]

Pode‐se definir isto? --Romanophile (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Foi. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Como diz‐se enough is enough? --Romanophile (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Já chega! Basta! — Ungoliant (falai) 13:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

terceiro[edit]

Como pronuncia‐se no Brasil? --Romanophile (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[ t̪e[ɾ ~ ɹ ~ ʁ ~ χ ~ h].ˈse(j).ɾ[u ~ o] ] — Ungoliant (falai) 00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisas de ajuda?[edit]

Tás bem? Tuas entradas recentes concernem‐me. Saudações, --Romanophile (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Não. Obrigado. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ali, [edit]

ali : não comparativo
lá : comprativo

Correcto? --Romanophile (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Não. Na prática, ali é para distâcias menores e para distâncias maiores. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
O mesmo aplica‐se às palavras aqui e ? --Romanophile (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Essas são para coisas próximas do falante. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
São sinónimos perfeitos? --Romanophile (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Eles tem conjuntos diferentes de significados, alguns deles são. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

obrigado[edit]

Muito obrigado pela tua gentileza. Não sei porque é tão difícil para outros. --Romanophile (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)