User talk:J3133: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic Miracle jester
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
That is a very reasonable question: why are you moving Wiktionary discussions around? Please don't revert; there is nothing inappropriate about the question.
Reverted edits made in bad faith after previous discussions
Tag: Undo
Line 58: Line 58:
:Instead of creating multiple sections on my talk page with sarcastic comments you could explain who is this “Miracle jester”. I hope you enjoy your “useful contributing” which consists of reverting my changes. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
:Instead of creating multiple sections on my talk page with sarcastic comments you could explain who is this “Miracle jester”. I hope you enjoy your “useful contributing” which consists of reverting my changes. [[User:J3133|J3133]] ([[User talk:J3133|talk]]) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
:: "Happy useful contributing" was meant in earnest rather than being sarcastic, but it would not necessarily sound so: my mistake in communication. Since, if you are Miracle jester (an if), there is a good chance we will see a lot of good contribution from you. Maybe you are not Miracle jester; we will see. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
:: "Happy useful contributing" was meant in earnest rather than being sarcastic, but it would not necessarily sound so: my mistake in communication. Since, if you are Miracle jester (an if), there is a good chance we will see a lot of good contribution from you. Maybe you are not Miracle jester; we will see. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

== Moving discussions around ==

Why is this: {{diff|59708516}}? What is it good for? It does not accurately represent the talk page history. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 19:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:44, 11 July 2020

Welcome

Hey, nice to see you made an account after we talked on discord, welcome. I'll include the standard "welcome" message below, it has some useful links and stuff if you want to read more about how Wiktionary works. But you can always ask me stuff on discord, I check it every day or at least every couple of days. Or you can ask on my user talk page which I check fairly often, here: User talk:Mnemosientje. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unattested inflected forms (Ido, maybe Esperanto)

It is all right to devote time to creating missing inflected forms, but I suppose there is a much better use of your time than adding unattested forms, such as sketeyi and simetresi. Google Books is often a useful place to check before publishing. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

bonvenon

mi rekomendas al vi aldoni babel al via uzantpaĝo.--So9q (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Snerts and heats

I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over these two words, but your "noun 2" construction is completely nonstandard. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima (I was planning to post in your talk page); I have seen those headers ("Noun 2") before but if they are nonstandard then you can remove the "2" (instead of rolling back everything); that is how other words which are both a plural and a plurale tantum are (i.e., with two headings; for example, Garinagu), because the word needs the categories for both nouns and lemmas, and noun forms and non-lemmas. J3133 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

malepart

Might be an obsolete form of malapert, or an error for that. Equinox 11:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your edit at white

Hi. Derived terms should (I think) go below the correct part of speech. So e.g. "black-and-white" comes from the adjective, not the verb. I think you just broke that. Equinox 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because the derived terms are for all parts of speech it should not be below a part of speech (see also black). J3133 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't completely agree. The derivatives should be under the correct part of speech, but till now they were indiscriminately dumped in the same derived terms section, which was incomprehensibly shoved under the noun section, so either someone should go to the trouble of dividing them by the part of speech they derive from or they should go in a part-of-speech-neutral position. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
See Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#black, white. J3133 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see: I think I oversimplified this and ideally we should split them by part of speech. OK. Thanks for listening. Equinox 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spaces and dashes

Hallo, I was surprised by this edit, where you removed spaces from around a dash. Is that based on some policy or your personal preference? In either case I find it less appealing than the previous version. PJTraill (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PJTraill The previous character was a hyphen-minus (-). I changed it to an em dash (“”). Because Wiktionary’s style guide does not mention anything about the use of dashes I looked at the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. I do not have a strong opinion regarding the kind of dash used: change it if you want to. If following the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style then an alternative to the unspaced em dash is a spaced en dash (“ ”). J3133 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the explanation, I did notice there seemed to be a hyphen in the old version, and I think a dash is an improvement; I have followed your suggestion and used a spaced en dash (and removed a rather lost looking full stop). PJTraill (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

{{unsigned}}

Kinda weird that you're going around and adding {{unsigned}} to super old talk pages, but if you're going to do that, maybe just add it to the end of the line, and not on a new line. Also, definitely don't change timecodes of old signatures. --{{victar|talk}} 06:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar I was already writing on your talk page but I will post my reply here:
  1. “For some reason”? I am adding unsigned templates for the same reason the unsigned template was made for—to sign unsigned comments.
  2. “not on a new line” I would like to see where this “rule” you mention is specifically written.
J3133 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey, if you want to add {{unsigned}} to 17-year-old talk pages, be my guest, but it's certainly very odd behavior. Adding them in a new line after single line comments though, that's breaking with standard practice. I don't even know why you would do that. --{{victar|talk}} 07:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar The talk pages of Wiktionary are a mess with many unsigned comments and I decided to fix that. “Adding them in a new line after single line comments though,  []” I do not add them in a new line after single line comments but if I did then it must have been a mistake (or I considered that the lines of the comments were confusing). For multiple line comments, I add them in a new line because when multiple users write after the same-indented comment it is confusing where the comments of the users end and where the other comments start, especially if the comments are unsigned then it looks like the comments were written by one user unless you look at the history of the talk page and find out that is not true. J3133 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I changed the time from EDT to UTC because UTC is the standard of Wiktionary and because all other comments are in UTC you would have to convert the time if you wanted to know when it was posted, which is unnecessarily complicated. J3133 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great, I think we're on the same page then regarding new lines, with that edit being a fluke. I get where you're coming from with the timezone discrepancy. --{{victar|talk}} 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Curly quotes in policies

There is no consensus for having curly quotes in policies, not even 60% support. Therefore, I reverted them in Wiktionary:Style guide and asked for their revertion in CFI. Some votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly quotes in WT:ELE, Wiktionary:Votes/2013-02/Typographic vs ASCII punctuation in policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Miracle jester

You seem very Miracle-jestery, I must say. Happy useful contributing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Instead of creating multiple sections on my talk page with sarcastic comments you could explain who is this “Miracle jester”. I hope you enjoy your “useful contributing” which consists of reverting my changes. J3133 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Happy useful contributing" was meant in earnest rather than being sarcastic, but it would not necessarily sound so: my mistake in communication. Since, if you are Miracle jester (an if), there is a good chance we will see a lot of good contribution from you. Maybe you are not Miracle jester; we will see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply