User talk:WritersCramp

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

Messages[edit]

Hi, WritersCramp, thanks for you contributions. I've deleted the redirect you created from Ragnarök to Ragnarok because wiktionary doesn't use redirects for this kind of thing - we need the Germanic, Swedish and Icelandic definitions there. Kappa 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

cats[edit]

So tell me, are you doing these all by hand, or an unauthorized bot?

Are you going to go back and change all the headers to Proper noun?

Are you going to go back and move the sister-project boxes to the top of the section and remove the See also so the entries look halfway decent?

Robert Ullmann 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have sounded too negative. I do think Serengeti cat should be a sense at Serengeti: "breed of domestic cat". We would not normally have an XX cat entry, just the name of the breed, sans "cat".
Oh, and do just add the images/tags here? No reason to use commonscat (;-). Everyone likes cat pictures. Big margin on those (old inside internet joke) Robert Ullmann 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

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


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cats (again)[edit]

I see on your user page you have that list of cat breeds. Could you please enlighten me, as to why some of them have "cat" in the title? When I saw "Siamese cat" I was thrown off, as it looked good at first blush, but really should be merged into "Siamese", right? --Connel MacKenzie 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When you've added a definition line to Siamese, replace the contents of Siamese cat with {{delete}}. Don't forget to check the "What links here" link on the left column. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And please don't add Italian translations - you do not have an Italian babel box. (and don't add links to non-existant Commons entries) SemperBlotto 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just saying "a domestic cat breed" doesn't really help anyone - a brief description please. SemperBlotto 07:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: please tag them with {{delete}} but do not change them into redirects. --Connel MacKenzie 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Entries in English Wiktionary ??[edit]

The English version should have the number of entries noted on the main page ~! Currently, it only has the aggregate of all the dictionaries combined 500K ! WritersCramp 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It does have the number of entries on the main page; the figure of 500K is the number of entries on the English Wiktionary. The French Wiktionary is over 400K, and there are several other projects over 100K, including the Russian, Greek, Turkish, Chinese, and a few others. If we aggregated all the Wiktionaries we'd probably get a figure over 1.5 million. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the homepage states

we currently have 534,024 entries in 389 languages.

to me that sounds like 389 different language dictionaries, not one English-dictionary. WritersCramp 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the Wiktionary projects are mono-lingual except for the Hebrew one. All the others are multi-lingual. So the English Wiktionary is a single multi-lingual dictionary, but with all the definitions and explanation in English. There is no such thing as an English-only Wiktionary. Each project lists the total number of all entries in that project on the main page, not the number of articles in a single language. To see the listings for a single language, you need to visit the Satatistics page. --EncycloPetey 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the SimpleEnglish wiktionary polylingual? SemperBlotto 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to gauleiter[edit]

I reverted this edit to include Category:Nazism as opposed to Category:de:Nazism because the page deals with an English word. Category:de:Nazism could be added to Gauleiter, because that is a German word. Thanks, and sorry again for not telling you about the renaming of the category. --Keene 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maine Coon[edit]

Thanks for your willingness to help out on this entry. Due to the controversy over the definition recently I think it is best if we settle on the definitions on the talk page and then unlock it once there is a decision, rather than leaving the page in potential flux due to disagreements. - TheDaveRoss 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

redlinks[edit]

Redlinks are one of our best ways of getting new content. Please don't revert them casually as you did. You cannot rely on your own impression of relative frequency. The whole point is that there are a lot more words in English than any one of us or any small group of us will have heard or read. end of days, for example, would be readily attested. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

surrogatum[edit]

Please do not remove RfV tags. The are to remain until a meaning is verified. See WT:CFI#Attestation for how. I am asking for citations that verify the meaning of the word, whatever it might be. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the tag again I will block you.
The requirement is that there be three quotations illustrating the usage of each sense. There are not three quotations. The dictionary citations are very interesting, but irrelevant to the process of getting demonstrations that the word is or has been used in the sense given. The meaning that you now show as the first sense agrees with what dictionaries might say, the few that have surrogatum as an entry. It is the second sense that does not even seem to read like a definition. I tagged it RfV rather that RfD because I thought you might be able to provide citations illustrating its use. If you cannot, please leave the tag in place so someone else can notice it and give it a try. We have attorneys and Canadians who look at entries who may be able to help. The plural also seems extremely implausible as you have it, though you might be right. Latin-derived words ending in -um virtually always form a Latin style plural in -a or a conventional-style regular English plural in -ums. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inflection tables to non-lemma entries. The Latin inflection tables should only appear on the nominative singular of nouns, the nom. sing. masculine of adjectives, and the first-person singular present active indicative form of verbs. See Wiktionary:About Latin. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

British Longhair[edit]

You sure about this now? last year you said: "{{Delete|The correct name is "British Semi-Longhair"}}. Conrad.Irwin 13:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

greenland wolf spider[edit]

Hi WritersCramp,

There seems to be confusion here. It doesn't matter whether there exists a spider that could potentially be called the "greenland wolf spider"; what matter is whether the term "greenland wolf spider" exists. According to two of the references you added, there actually is no common name for Pardosa glacialis. "Greenland wolf spider" might be a reasonable choice for one, but until speakers actually make that choice, we can't include it.

Conversely, we include entries for terms like unicorn, vomitorium, and Northwest Passage, where the term exists but the referent does not. Real world? We don't need no stinkin' real world. :-P

RuakhTALK 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —RuakhTALK 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Translingual not Latin[edit]

Hi WritersCramp. Please note that entries for binomial genus/species names are by convention listed as "Translingual", not as Latin. See, for example, Homo sapiens. Thanks! Pingku 12:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Related terms[edit]

Hi. In this edit I removed the ====Related terms==== section from wolf spider because that section is for words and terms which have a similar etymology. For more information, please read the short section at WT:ELE#Related terms. --Jackofclubs 19:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a supporting citation on Wiktionary. Please see pages like Citations:parrot to see what dictionary citations are. Wikipedia-style references are not considered useful for supporting a definition. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yawm al-Qiyamah[edit]

Funny... doesn't look like Arabic to me. Did you mean English? --EncycloPetey 01:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now abuse, which results in a block. next time, please create Arabic entries in Arabic script, not in English script. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

surrogatum[edit]

It failed RfV. WP is not a durably archived source. End of story. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Put the quotes in the article. Read: WT:CFI#Attestation. The quotes should clearly convey the meaning. The wordier the definition the less likely that you can find quotes that support all aspects of the definition. Feel free to use Citations:surrogatum for the quotes. I believe that surrogatum principle has citations in the proper format for examples. Don't worry about getting it perfect. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"blocking the text in the definition"[edit]

Hi WritersCramp,

Could you clarify what you meant in this edit summary, when you described the image as "blocking the text in the definition"? What browser and operating system are you using, and what exactly are you seeing?

Thanks in advance,
RuakhTALK 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Related terms[edit]

By "related", we mean etymologically related, not meaning related (it's confusing, blame WT:ELE). I.e. the section at nuclear holocaust should be split into Synonyms and (possibly) See also. Conrad.Irwin 14:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear enough. Only the Synonyms should go into the Synonyms section, the rest should be in the See also section (unless they are irrelevant, which most of them seem to be, in which case they can be deleted). See also WT:ONYMS for other sections you could use. Conrad.Irwin 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:CORNELIUSSEON[edit]

Are you also User:CORNELIUSSEON? He was well known for creating poorly formatted irrelevant entries. I think you know where I'm going with this. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubborn[edit]

I'm impressed with your stubbornness and ability to ignore what anyone says to you, no matter how rational and reasonable. I suggest if you're not prepared to read what people say to you here and on pages like WT:RFD, you're going to have a very hard time here. Make friends, not enemies! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Languages and babel[edit]

Hello, what are the languages that you speak? What is your mother tongue? Would you care to add {{Babel}} to your user page? Greetings, --Dan Polansky 11:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debates[edit]

You have to learn that deletion debates aren't an attack on you, just simply a Wiktionary procedure. If you knew anything about Wiktionary criteria, it would help, and would mean you could comment on the entries instead of just attacking me to deflect attention from the nominated entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To add to this: Mglovesfun is perfectly within his rights to "wikistalk" you if he wants. A deletion debate is a debate about the word in question and not about the editor. The motives for nominating a word are irrelevant to the debate (not that I find anything wrong with these motives). If you have a problem with an editor, bring it up somewhere else, not in a debate about a given word or phrase. Ƿidsiþ 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I third this suggestion. Please have a good read of CFI and refrain from making personal attacks on veteran contributors who are nominating entries for deletion merely to the benefit of the project. ---> Tooironic 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic fascist[edit]

I think DCDuring was right to move your citation, because it uses the noun and not the RFVed adjective. Equinox 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

L2 Headers[edit]

Please remember to put L2 headers for Language in entries you create, along with L3 headers with the appropriate part of speech. Thanks. --Neskayagawonisgv? 01:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian soldier[edit]

The term Christian soldier usually does not refer to an actual soldier. --EncycloPetey 21:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

munchkin[edit]

What prompted you to completely undo all the edits I made to the entry for munchkin? It was evidently intentional, as you used the edit summary "rv," but you didn't give any explanation as to why.

Here is clarification on the edits I made:

1. The definition "a small person" was technically correct, as the term can be applied to both children and little people/dwarves, but it didn't reflect how the term is used in the real world. Someone who says "I want my son to spend more time with other munchkins" isn't indicating that they want their son to spend more time with a group of small people that possibly includes both children and dwarf adults. They're using "munchkins" to refer exclusively to children. Hence the need to split the definition "a small person" into two different definitions — "a child" and "a person of very short stature" — as I did. I've gathered citations showing the usage of the term "munchkin" in both these senses on Citations:munchkin.

2. The former definition of the Oz sense — "Any of a group of fictional characters from The Wizard of Oz" — was inaccurate on two levels. First, "Munchkins" does not refer to "any group of characters" in The Wizard of Oz, but a specific group, the inhabitants of Munchkin Country. Second, Munchkins don't just appear in 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, or in the book on which it is based (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), but in several of L. Frank Baum's Oz books.

3. I added more synonyms, which should be straightforward.

If you see an issue with one of these edits, the ideal approach would be to point it out somewhere so it can be addressed, or address it yourself with an explanation in the edit summary. But making a wholesale reversion without offering any explanation isn't helpful. Astral (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

vest buster[edit]

Remember this is Wiktionary, if a word/term is not normally capitalised in general uses it's entry should not be either. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

God of this world[edit]

Hi! The discussion is currently still on RFD at #Prince_of_the_Power_of_the_Air. When it's archived, it'll presumably end up on Talk:Prince of the Power of the Air, Talk:Prince of this world and/or Talk:God of this world. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

groupos[edit]

These don't seem to be WT:CFI#Attestation meeting references. Certainly should not be de-tagged by entry creator under these circumstances. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

alcohol intoxication, etc.[edit]

Level-two headers are reserved for language names. Please do not use them for anything else. (Try using Tabbed Languages to understand why.)

Also, additions like alcohol poisoning, alcohol intoxication look rather WT:SOPpy. Keφr 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

ratting[edit]

Did you even look at the citation I added, where the word "ratting" is indisputably used to mean "rat-baiting"? Stop removing this correct definition please. Equinox 18:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 1 month[edit]

You've been blocked from editing for one month for unnacceptable behaviour towards other editors, as demonstrated on User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV#Stalking. This is just plainly not acceptable. —CodeCat 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

CC you are a complete dickhead! This arsehole has been stalking me through my edits for months to harass me! Why don't you block his account you fucking jerkoff! WritersCramp (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don’t permanently block him. He’s good for a laugh, and laughter saves lives (like mine). --Romanophile (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)