User talk:Romanophile

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:Æ&Œ)
Jump to: navigation, search
Old persona : User:Pilcrow


WARNING: side‐effects of reading this archive include
dizziness, vomiting, nausea, diarrhœa, and may complicate pregnancy.
Keep out of reach of children.



Welcome to the discussion page of Æ&Œ. Users may also refer to him as ‘Seth.’


Please don't go. I know what it's like to feel unwelcome at times. But I think that if we let incivility drive us away, then the responsible parties will never have to acknowledge the impact of their behaviour, and nothing will change. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have also felt unwelcome at times and you have inspired me to take the same route as yourself. Pass a Method (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? You’ll just come crawling back up here everyday. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, as I expected, I was going to be unblocked. No matter how miserable I feel, I’m probably doomed to being eternally committed to this project, quite honestly. I do appreciate your sentiments, though. —Æ&Œ (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I might. But i defninitely want to get rid of my current account. I tried a name change but was flopped. So i might as well go for a complete disposal. Pass a Method (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Kephir is just being arrogant today. You should be able to reapply for a fresh username. --Romanophile (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you speak to Kephir for me please? I attempted to reason with him to no avail. Pass a Method (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't had any problems with you at all so I would be sad to see you go. *hug* —CodeCat 15:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


There seems to be an aversion to including more requests in the English request section. People think of the request section as a place to solicit words that people actually desire to know. It’s not supposed to be a to‐do list that lets the users know which valid words are not yet included. I’m tempted to quit requesting words, and since it’s improbable that the page will ever really be cleaned up, the action may be long‐term. Plus, I dislike English, so requesting more English words is illogic. --Romanophile (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

headword PoS[edit]

When adding {{head}}, could you also include the second parameter for the part of speech? —CodeCat 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I do this, can you tell me for certain that this is the common practice here? Because I myself don’t recall this being mandatory. --Romanophile (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It became recommended practice ever since {{head}} categorises into lemmas and non-lemmas. This is done based on the specified category, so it's desirable to always have a category. —CodeCat 15:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
O.K., I fixed the heads now. You can check them to be sure, if you wish. --Romanophile (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)



Please note that Russian IPA require a word stress as a minimum and not all words are pronounced regularly, so a better knowledge of Russian phonology is required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. My pronunciation additions were more like test edits, which is why I only made a couple of them. --Romanophile (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


What was that about? Keφr 12:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Test edits to see if anybody would soon notice my vandalism. I thought that if I vandalised articles that only I worked on, nobody would (soon) notice.
2. Boredom and lack of respect for the community. --Romanophile (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Since you're not an autopatroller (for good reason, apparently), all your edits are listed in Recent changes as needing to be patrolled. That means those of us who patrol recent changes will see it, if we have time to check thoroughly.
2. How about respect for the people who use the dictionary?
If you're tired of contributing, take a break- don't take it out on the dictionary. I routinely block people for doing what you did there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought that I was one already, but that’s O.K. Even if I never vandalised, I feel more secure when somebody else is reviewing my edits. As for respecting our readers…hmm, I could, but I don’t expect people to read the entries that I create. I create them because I feel that the project is incomplete and that they must be documented somewhere. But to answer your question, I’m not going to obstinately argue for my right to vandalize, so you could say that yes I will ‘respect’ the readers in this fashion. --Romanophile (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That'll teach me to post messages when I'm in a hurry. You actually are an autopatroller. Your edit showed up because an IP marked it for deletion: people do read your entries. Even if you add entries for your own reasons (which is perfectly ok), what you did was completely against those, too. Whether you respect the community or not, whether you respect the readers or not, have some respect for the dictionary and for what you're doing- if you're not going to do it right, don't do it. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Scots Wiktionary[edit]

I don't know too much about the Incubator, but I see that you had made some edits to the Scots Wiktionary there. I want to ask you if you know why entries there are all written mostly in English? I mean it even has the word "English", "Etymology", "the", and other things, that are not used in Scots. The term for English in Scots is Inglis. So why? Is it a rule on Incubator to write in English first for all the stuff besides definitions themselves, or is it just ignorance of the language by users? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What? I don’t recall editing there, neither anonymously nor under an account. Can I have a link to these edits? --Romanophile (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don’t recall making this strange edit, but maybe my memory is serving me poorly again. I’ve never seen anybody create a page by reversion, which is very strange. And I cannot I find any other contributions by the I.P. that I (supposedly) reverted. The fact that this account has only one edit, which is old, and that it was a reversion should indicate that I never had any serious interest in this project. My knowledge of Scots is limited at best. --Romanophile (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the history of our noo and found an identical edit there, which indicates that my edit was imported. The entry was imported from English Wiktionary. --Romanophile (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

qué tanto[edit]

Hi. Want to have a closer look at this page? --Type56op9 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Romanophile (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You don’t have to insult me. And this account is three years old (older than yours, in fact). --Romanophile (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


There's nothing "questionable" about the way I use people's talk pages. Sometimes people do things I disapprove of. Those times, I often leave a note expressing my disapproval. In this case, I disapprove of the way Kephir and Ungoliant act toward me, and to a certain extent toward each other. Disapproving of another person's edits violates no policy. Purplebackpack89 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You left him a complaint that was clearly unimportant to him, which consumed some of his time. You don’t seem very interested in repairing your relationships with either of these editors, and alerting them of talk page updates with complaints that they don’t care about is hardly going to make them doubt theirselves; it will only further their hostility towards you. I’m not certain about whatever you desired to accomplish, but if you desired to make Ungoliant compassionate and treat you better, you failed. --Romanophile (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Romanophile’s editing philosophy[edit]

Since I feel that my intents aren’t always clear from my edits, and I desire to comprehend myself more, I feel obligated to outline my editing philosophy. But for brevity, it can be summarized as this: everything has to be perfect.

Much of my work is copied from other Wikis, so as a result, I’m obligated to gives thanks to the source in my edit summaries. But I also conduct some of my own original research. I look on Google Books and sometimes Wikisource to confirm terms from dead languages.

I must always document Italic and specifically Romance words. If it is an alternative form, then I must document it. If it is a non‐canonical word, then I must document it also. I normally don’t encourage myself to include words from language unrelated to Italic, but sometimes I still do, but usually only to a minor extent. In contrast to Italic entries, everything must be as complete as possible. If I know that the term exists, but I’m unsure how to define it, I should include the section with a tag requesting a definition.

For Italic sections, everything has to be as perfect as possible. If there exists an etymology, then it must be complete (exceptions include alternative forms and non‐canonical forms). Every ascendant must be included, even hypothetical words. So for example, a French etymology for a typical French term should include its Middle French ascendant, the Old French one, the Latin one or ones, the Proto‐Italic one (or ones), and finally the Proto‐Indo‐European one or ones. (Currently, there is no widely accepted ascendant of Proto‐Indo‐European.) If an original attestation date exists, it should be included, but for inherited terms the history should say « atestiguado (en [x]) desde 0000 ». Cognates, particularly from related languages, may be mentioned, but I usually obligate myself to do this if I am copying an existent etymology that mentions cognates.

Pronunciations, like etymologies, should be complete. Since I’m not an expert phonologist, I obligate myself to use pronunciations from other Wikis instead. Although I can read an IPA spelling, I consider it dangerous to create my own. Nevertheless, existent pronunciations may be modified with parentheses. Any pronunciation file should of course be included. Homophones, likewise, are obligatory if existent (as in the case of modern French, they usually are).

Alternative orthographies and variants should be included, but if it’s an extremely obscure form, then I don’t usually consider it worth mentioning. Archaic Romanian orthography vacillates between diacritics and the absence thereof, but I like to include the diacritical forms because they’re less likey to be mistakes. I feel uneasy including those sans diacritics since it’s possible that they existed due to typographical limitations. But then again, our own project includes informal forms such as coeur, cliche and jalapeno, so perhaps including them is not a terrible idea. But again, if it’s extremely rare, then it might be acceptable to intentionally leave it out.

Plurals and inflected forms should be included when they’re available. If the noun happens to be uncountable, I could just add a usage note saying such.

Definitions, the most important feature of any good dictionary, should likewise be complete. So I should list synonyms, including dialectal ones, in order to make the definition comprehensible to everybody who desires to read it. Obsolete forms and obsolete words generally shouldn’t be used, but there exist some exceptions: 1. if the entire language is an antiquated version of the modern equivalent, and 2. if the word or sense per se is obsolete. Hypernyms (especially for foreign languages), hyponyms, antonyms and synonyms should be included and not absent. Wikcionario permits cataloguing these terms underneath the relevant senses (which I like).

Currently, I’m not sure what to do with related terms since «derivados» could imply that they came from the word, which is not always true, but if I feel it necessary I can just include them in the «véase también» sections.

Wikipedia links should be included, but usually only for nouns. Giving them to verbs, adjects and so on would be strange.

Conjugation is admittedly not a high priority of mine since 1. they can be rather time consuming to design and 2. I don’t always have access to a reliable conjugation. Currently, only Spanish verbal forms have been prioritised, but every other verbal form must be included manually. Likewise, creating entries for all non‐canonical forms is not a priority of mine, but if the entry per se includes at least one lemma word in an Italic language, then the non‐canonical forms must be included for the sake of completion.

Criticism is welcome. --Romanophile (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Are forms like "hypalbuminæmia" actually attestable? You need to check before you add them, however much you like the look of the ligature. Some of these blood diseases were only named or discovered recently, in a time when nobody uses the æ. Equinox 02:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
If you browsed your contribution index, you should have noticed that I deliberately ignored the words that I couldn’t find in vintage texts, and I had to ignore many of them. This is to keep my arse out of the boiling water. I just lack the willpower to copy the citations since it’s so chronophagous. --Romanophile (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

rœlling on the floor læughing[edit]

Oh my god you are hilarious. You don't even know much about Latin, yet you've been randomly inserting æ and œ everywhere because you think they look cool. Nice meme. —This unsigned comment was added by AutisticCatnip (talkcontribs).

Oh for fuck’s sake, I was a teenager, O.K.? What the fuck do you want from me? Do I need to build a fucking time machine and stop myself from making mistakes? Will that finally make you happy and shut the Hell up? Just fuck off already, assholes. --Romanophile (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)