User talk:Razorflame

ನನ್ನು ಇರುತ್ತೇನೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ

Archives

• February to December 2009
• January to July 2010

中国话

Before you nominate other valuable Chinese words (I know that the entry which you tagged required a significant effort in order to be wikified), it would be recommendable to look up in Chinese wikipedia whether there is some article about the word, i. e. to determine that it is not a hoax. In this particular case, you did not need to do even this, since the two extant interwiki links to ja and zh.wikt suggested this is a real word. In my opinion, a {{attention}} would have proven much more beneficial to the entry and conducive to its expansion in lieu of its deletion. Do not consider this a reproof (because of the entry’s pitiful condition by the time you tagged it), but instead a recommendation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I was debating upon whether or not an {{attention}} tag would have been worth the effort put onto it, but I've had others gripe about me putting it on entries before in the past, so I just marked it for deletion. I'll definitely add an attention tag the next time that happens. Razorflame 18:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent action

Hello, I'm aware that Wiktionary and Wikipedia have different procedures, and I respect that, but I believe it would be beneficial for Wiktionary to revamp the Abuse reports project. The project is currently inactive (and has been since 2006), so a revamp is really needed for it to stay functional. Would it be alright for me to move the project to Abuse response and integrate it with Wikipedia's project? Of course, WT would stay independent, but this revamp would allow it to function more efficiently. Netalarm 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need community consensus first. Bring up this topic at the Beer Parlour. Razorflame 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link there? Thanks. Netalarm 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:BP. Razorflame 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a proposal there. Please comment if you want to. Netalarm 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can do. Razorflame 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fancy volunteering?

Hi, Razorflame - I wonder whether you'd mind if I removed your autopatrol flag temporarily to test Yair Rand's hypothesis at WT:GP#Special:GlobalGroupPermissions that your global rollback right gives you the autopatrol automatically? Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Let's try it :) Razorflame 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed you from autopatrollers, fancy making an edit or two? Conrad.Irwin 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it gives me autopatrol automatically. Razorflame 00:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Thank you very much. I'll add you back to autopatrollers anyway - so we can keep track. I imagine people may be irritated by this, though I can see why it makes sense... Conrad.Irwin 00:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if one can be trusted with a global tool, one should be trusted to make good edits, although, I cannot say that that is always the case. And yes, I can see why people could get irritated with it as well :) Cheers, Razorflame 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments

When someone has just blocked you, it is stupid to laugh in their face about having just been unblocked [1]. All that kind of comment does is to further anger everyone. If you do so again, I will block you for stupidity. Thanks. Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Won't do that again. Razorflame 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortsätter debatten här...

Underförstått: din redigeringar hittills leder mig inte till att tro att din kunskaper i svenska är så särdeles djupgående, förutom vad du nu läst dig till i ordböcker. Jag skulle ha vissa problem med att se dig lägga till svenska uppslag som enbart är baserade på vad du sett i andra ordböcker, då detta dels leder till missförstånd, dels leder det till att åtminstone jag blir orolig för upphovsrättsproblematiken. \Mike 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hvor er debattens begyndelse? Har Razorflame sandeligen begyndt at oprette artikler med svensk ord her? Mig synes, at det vil frembringe intet godt. Kan han idetmindste forstå vore spørgsmål? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Han kan forstå ... når han bruger GoogleTranslate. På samme måde som jeg gør nu. Oontzoontz — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Mike. No, there isn't a need to worry about copyright infringements because I get my knowledge from public domain sources. Bogorm, my knowledge of Swedish is at an sv-1 level, which should tell you that I understand it, but to a limited extent. Razorflame 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, let's just hope there's someone around to check your Swedish entries the way I did today - there were, as you've already noted, a couple of errors and misunderstandings. I just want to make one thing certain: do you expect me to check all your entries for misunderstood Swedish? \Mike 20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not planning on contributing in Swedish any further. Razorflame 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...

Danish uses pronouns. Stop editing langauges you don't have any real knowledge of. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech entries

I wonder: what is the source for the Czech entries that you are creating? The only public domain Czech-English dictionary that I know of is Slovník česko-anglický: s úplnou anglickou výslovnosti by Karel Jonáš, 1890. --Dan Polansky 17:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Dan. I recently purchased this print dictionary: English-Czech, Czech-English dictionary by Ivan Pouldauf. That is where I've been finding my terms, while verifying them through other means. Are any of them questionable or wrong? If they are, please let me know! None of the words used from the print dictionary are copyright violations because they specifically claimed that it was free use on their copyright page. Furthermore, all words found in the dictionary were also found on this website that I use that is licensed through the GNU GFDL license :) Razorflame 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Poldauf dictionary is in public domain? Ivan Poldauf died in 1984.[2].

Note that GFDL license is not the license of Wiktionary. The license of Wiktionary is Creative Commons Attribution/Share-alike and GFDL[3], so direct taking over of translation pairs from a GFDLed dictionary could border on copyright violation. I say "could border", as I am not very clear about whether translation pairs can be copyrighted. --Dan Polansky 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, translation pairs couldn't be copyrighted (I talked to BD about this like 4 months ago) and he said that translation pairs could not be copyrighted, but that the dictionary could. Razorflame 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IANAL but I am pretty sure that if you copy significant portions of a dictionary that is a "derivative work" and breaches their copyright. Equinox ◑ 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then again, are you saying that the Poldauf dictionary is in public domain? What do you mean by "None of the words used from the print dictionary are copyright violations because they specifically claimed that it was free use on their copyright page" (italics added by me)? Does "they" in the italics refer to Poldauf? What exactly does it say on the copyright page of the Poldauf dictionary? --Dan Polansky 10:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, since I'm naturally suspicious: the fact that something appears on a Web site claiming to be under a free licence does not necessarily make it so. Can you show us the Web site, the wording there, and the other wording you mention in the dictionary itself? It is very important for us not to "poison our well" by infringing any copyrights, and could even leave WMF open to embarrassing and expensive litigation. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dan, the dictionary is copyrighted, but the website that I use is not. http://slovnik.cz is the website that I use. It lists this on one of its pages, which I assumed meant the GNU/FDL license: anglicko - český: 70 tis. slovíček (zdroj: GNU/FDL Anglicko-Český slovník, ve výpisu zkratka "g"). If this is not a sufficient enough of proof, then I am deeply sorry because I did not know that they were copyright violations (if what I wrote above turns out to be not enough proof that it is not the same license. In that instance, I will mark every Czech entry that I've made in the past week for deletion myself and I will either stop working on this site, or work only in English, Italian, Spanish, Esperanto, and Ido again. Razorflame 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wiktionary Terms of Use (see [[m:Terms of Use]]) expressly forbid the importation of text from elsewhere that is not available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. The GFDL is not currently compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. So yes, please mark all of these entries for deletion. —Ruakh_TALK 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh, I have done so with every entry that I have used information from this site. I hope that that will solve this problem. From now on, I'll probably create Czech entries using information from the Czech Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Razorflame 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovnik.cz contains not only data licensed under GNU GFDL (which is insufficient for Wiktionary anyway, for Wiktionary needs CC-BY-SA, as mentioned by Ruakh), but also data provided by LangSoft, provided by an unspecified license[4]. Slovnik.cz says that "Hlavní slovní zásoba slovníku.cz vychází ze zredukované slovní zásoby desktopové verze produktu PC Translator společnosti LangSoft", in English, approximately "The main bulk of the vocabulary of slovnik.cz stems from the reduced vocabulary of the desktop version of the PC Translator product, by the LangSoft company". What could have confused you is the statement "20.březen 2009: Rozšíření slovní zásoby anglicko - českého slovníku o slovíčka z projektu GNU/FDL Anglicko-Český slovník. Ve výpisu označena jako "g"", which merely says that the vocabulary of slovnik.cz has been extended by the vocabulary of another project, licensed under GNU GFDL; the other project is http://slovnik.zcu.cz/online/. It is only natural that you could not read this information properly, as you speak no Czech. Sigh. --Dan Polansky 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "Dan, the dictionary is copyrighted, but the website that I use is not": Huh? Are you saying that http://slovnik.cz is not copyrighted? That is improbable. Even if the website were licensed under a free-as-in-freedom license compatible with CC-BY-SA, it would still be copyrighted. Have you found the licensing terms of slovnik.cz? What are they? --Dan Polansky 22:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, slovnik.cz is copyrighted, but since I thought that since GFDL was a sufficient enough license to use, I thought that it was okay to use information from that site. I use lots of information from other sites, though, but as promised, I'll make every page that I've made from that site for deletion. Razorflame 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear: even if slovnik.cz were licensed solely under GFDL (which it is not), and even if Wiktionary were licensed solely by GFDL (which it is not), you would still be obliged by GFDL to keep attribution of your source, which you could do in your edit summaries. --Dan Polansky 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will in the future. In the meantime, I must request the deletion of the ones I made from the site. Razorflame 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted all of your Czech entries requested for deletion --Volants 08:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you stay away from Czech entries altogether? (On 13 June, you have created "voltáž".) --Dan Polansky 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as they are correct, and that they come from sources that they are compatible with our licensing here, I see no reason to do so, but for the time being, I can't make many Czech entries because I don't have the sourcing to do so. I cannot promise to stay away from Czech all together because I have a real genuine interest in the language, but I can promise that I'll look for sources that comply with our licenses before I make any further entries :). Razorflame 16:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to promise anything, as you would not keep any promise that you make anyway.

I am merely requesting that you stay away from Czech. --Dan Polansky 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should I have to stay away from Czech when the entries that I made were correct? I mean, doesn't that seem counterintuitive? Razorflame 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You should stay away from Czech entries because you cannot know whether they are correct, and because of your history of carelessness and poor judgment. As simple as that. Just few days ago, you claimed of two copyrighted sources that they were free to use in Wiktionary. That does not inspire trust. I have better things to do than monitoring your actions. --Dan Polansky 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to monitor anything because I only add information that is correct. Razorflame 17:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I needed a good laugh.​—msh210℠ 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue even from this current talk page, let alone the archives. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

to

I've noticed you often make minute edits simply to insert "to" in verb entries, why is that? The lemma of Danish verbs is infinitive so it doesn't add any information. Further more the correct translation of e.g. "to dare" would be "at turde", and we don't write that, except in the template.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Leolaursen, I know that the infinitive forms of Danish verbs include at before the verb, however, since the at IS included in the inflection line, that automatically provides the sourcing needed to add to before the verb because the inflection line dictates the definition. Razorflame 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a habit that dictionaries have. It is correct by current Wiktionary practice. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We should fix that, then.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 07:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

me bezonas trinkaĵo?

If you seriously added that (which you did, it's pretty clear that eo-2 is a bit of an exaggeration. Out of three words, you've only gotten one of them right. This is basic basic basic grammar. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice you still maintain your eo-2 status. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it if someone other than you asks me to. Otherwise, leave me alone. Razorflame 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You botched a simple sentence. Only one of the three words was grammatically correct. You think you're not misrepresenting yourself? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I will change it if someone other than you asks me to. Otherwise, leave my talk page alone. Razorflame 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Opi, how about leaving talk pages when it's clear that you're being annoying? Razorflame, it is pretty clear that you're not actually at the level of eo-2, and probably not even at eo-1. It seems like probably all of your babel boxes are very inaccurate. You should really fix them. --Yair rand (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change eo-2 to eo-1. I'll see what else I can do. Razorflame 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech entries 2

What is your source for the Czech entry "inovace", the one that you have just created? --Dan Polansky 07:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Czech Wikipedia. Razorflame 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, Dan has a very legitimate right to ask you to stay away from Czech entries. Please do so, or you will find yourself blocked. I grow tired of your recklessness and disregard for the critiques of wiser editors. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stay away from Czech. Razorflame 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

къан

I rejected your deletion request, because the word is listed in my dictionary and therefore I consider it valid. -- Prince Kassad 10:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sure, no problems. I only requested deletion because I made it back when I was editing in these weird languages without any knowledge about them. If it is in your dictionary, can you add transliterations? Razorflame 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, done. -- Prince Kassad 12:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Future edits

From now on, you solemnly promise to edit only in English, Esperanto, Ido, Spanish and Italian. You will not add example sentences that could contain possible grammatical errors. You will not be editing in languages other than those 5, unless you could first find a knowledgeable Wiktionarian willing to clean up possible mistakes. Are we clear? --Ivan Štambuk 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I won't edit in any languages besides those 5. I never add example sentences anyways. I'm glad to have this one last chance to set things right. Razorflame 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

not an example sentence. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing those any longer. Razorflame 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

funelofusilo and funelfusilo

Language referred to in the header doesn't match language referred to in other places in the entry.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Razorflame 18:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish entries

I usually see all new Polish entries and I follow recent changes, but please put {{attention|pl}} to your new Polish entries. It will be easy for me to not forget to add inflection. I usually do that immediately, but now I'm on a wiki-break so I can overlook something. Maro 20:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped making Polish entries, so this doesn't apply any longer, but thanks for the tip. Razorflame 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

place and User:Missionary

Can you tell whether the edits might be OK? DCDuring TALK 01:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They have the possibility of being OK, but I rolled back his edits because they remove a big section of the translations section, which denotes vandalism. Razorflame 01:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He had done it again and you had let that stand. I reverted again. Anyway, I think Atelaes has addressed it. The cause of the problem seems to have been the mismatch between the definitions and the trans-table glosses. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted him at least twice more in the past 12 hours or so, but I am glad that the problem has been resolved. Razorflame 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

caliente, volante

Hi Razorflame,

Could you do the plural adjective forms of the Spanish adjectives caliente and volante? I'm not sure right now what the format/template(s) for plural Spanish adjectives are...   AugPi 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Razorflame 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you!   AugPi 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Razorflame 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

latanier

I was not familiar with the word, but after googling it, I found that according to this dictionary it is a type of fan palms tree of the southern United States and the Caribbean region. There is a photo of it in the French wikipedia. Cheers! GiuseppeMassimo 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Razorflame 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Block

Emailed: Could you please continue to add your input into the discussion on Msh210's talk page please? I am currently blocked for a year, which I think should be shortened down to a month or so. It would be very helpful if you could add your input.

Thanks, Razorflame

I agree with you that this block was heavy-handed and unfair, but their minds are made up and there isn’t anything more that I can do to help you. We don’t have a process in place for this sort of scenario and admins give vent to their whims. I don’t know what else to tell you. —Stephen 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)