User talk:Amgine

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

fr:User:Amgine/Page d’accueil View or restore 46 deleted edits?

Welcome back!


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 07:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Extended absences[edit]

As some of you are aware, I'm spending much of the Summer and hopefully the Autumn aboard a sailboat. Wish me fair winds! <Am wondering if I should request my admin bits removed until I can focus more time/energy on en.wt>...

I don't understand why you reverted at all. What was the perceived problem? --EncycloPetey 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The word extraneous is not simple enough for a dictionary definition. A dictionary definition needs to be composed of simple definitions so that people can understand them, and not have to also look up the words within the definition. The current definition is also incorrect because it says that "concise" means "expressing much" which is not true. "Concise" means "using only as many words as necessary". which is actually more concise than the current definition, so I don't really understand why you reverted to the old one.Gregcaletta 06:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that I implied you were abusing your power. And I'm sorry if I'm further wasting your time, but I am still curious about one thing. You said you disagree with the statement "definitions should be made as simple as possible" which implies you agree with the statement "definitions should not be made as simple as possible" (and bear in mind that "simple" and "simplistic" are two separate words for a very good reason), which to me implies that you would agree with the statement "definitions should be made more complex than necessary". This is one point in which I felt you were not listening, because I find it hard to believe that a moderator would believe this. Another point I felt you were ignoring is that the word "extraneous" is esoteric. It is a far less common word than '"concise", and I do not see the use in a definition which describes a common word by using much less common words, so we should avoid using "extraneous" even if it means making the definition slightly longer.
It is not necessary to be polite in order to make this dictionary, but politeness is a good idea in general, so I'm sorry if I have come across as antagonistic.Gregcaletta 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petty Officers[edit]

My argument for including the rankings is that their meanings very from region to region. I note also that even Merriam-Webster Unabridged includes the distinctions between the level of petty officers. I don't have access to other unabridged dictionaries so this is the only reference to which I can rely in defense of my position, but I am sure that any precise dictionary should include all the varying meanings of a term, and since the terms vary in meaning based on region, it is necessary to distinguish them. Abburns 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concede my oversight on "non-commissioned", that was a product of copying and pasting without properly formatting. However, I must respectfully insist that it is entirely reasonable to include these precise definitions, even if they require that even more obscure military titles be included. If the purpose of this dictionary is to include the definitions of every word and phrase in every language, this seems necessary. Furthermore, I have seen that some foreign words list their translations as these more differentiated ratings. Should we leave red links for the sake of brevity? I think not. Any way, what is the harm of including more definitions? Oh, and with regard to capitalizing the terms, that I suppose is a style issue. I don't know if it has been dealt with, but other words I have seen such as sergeant and master sergeant were not capitalize. I assumed from this that this was the appropriate style. Abburns 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reality, if you look at the chart of U.S. enlisted ranks or the Ratings and other Ranks of the British Armed Forces, there are a number of different rates and ranks, but not so many to look encyclopedic. Besides, the dictionary definition simply consists of describing where each rank falls relative to the other. Furthermore, some have the same name for different departments of the military so a definition can refer to the multiple departments, thus sergeant applies to the Army and Marines and is the same rate, Navy and Coast Guard have identical ranks, etc. In this way, the actual number of definitions needed is between fifty and one hundred for the United States and Commonwealth countries. As for ratings like Hospitalman, Constructionman, etc., that might be excessive and encyclopedic if differentiated between the various departments of the military. Abburns 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked bootblack up in my unabridged dictionary and found that it a lowly position, "one who shines shoes and boots." It dates from 1817. If it is in one dictionary, it should be in this dictionary. Abburns 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner, editors (1989), “Amgine”, in The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, →ISBN. Under protuberancy, the following is written: "Later examples of the plural form may be typographical errors for protuberances." Eroica 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

may be, they said, not are. They admit that the word occurs. Unless it can be proved that they're typos, I see no reason to reject them. Eroica 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thomas Salusbury's translation of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems has examples of eminencies, prominencies and protuberancies, which strongly suggests that the latter is not a typographical error, but precisely what Salusbury intended.Eroica 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving them drugs, taking their lives away[edit]

AFAIK, I've avoided brand names and only used generic names. Where it's clearly experimental I've tried to indicate that by saying "proposed for treatment of", or "with potential applications in". Can you give specific examples you don't like, and explain how you would change them? Equinox 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case I copied the text from Wikipedia. I'm not actually a competent chemist or pharmacist; it just seems to me that Wikipedia is right enough of the time to make that generally okay to do (and Wiktionary will always have some errors...). It seems to me that the problem is the idea that WMF is somehow responsible for its content that (the big plus point that everyone touts) "anyone can edit"; if some random troll changes the article to "a drug that makes you thin" and a bimbo takes it and dies, could WMF possibly be blamed? Are there precedents? Surely someone has thought of this, given the volatility of the wiki medium. Equinox 03:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. Well, I don't really understand about "ethics" or care about people I haven't met, but I have tried to make the entries neutral, as I usually do and as befits a dictionary. I can easily slip up, though. Of course I'm happy for you to edit anything to make it more acceptable (not that my opinion matters, due to the carey-sharey licence!). If you strongly feel that I should stop pending discussion (Tea Room etc.) then I will drop this druggy topic. I only picked it up because it's a particularly rich word source and nobody else seemed to be doing it. Equinox 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose Beer Parlour is better for general topics, as Tea Room is usually on specific words. Go for it. I appreciate your comments and I'm sure a discussion won't do any harm. Equinox 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sum Of Parts[edit]

I'm a little confused by what you said "specific addition freighted content". What does freighted mean? (in this case)? 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: gas generator[edit]

Sorry, why did you just (apparently) arbitrarily delete this article? The term is not simply 'gas' and 'generator' stuck together it has a specific meaning that is distinct from that???Wolfkeeper 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gas generator[edit]

A device that generates a gas. A gas generator. Perhaps you can explain to me how it contains additional information? - Amgine/talk 22:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No.... it's a strict subset of that. See w:gas generator. It's not just anything that creates gas. You can make gas by boiling water, since water vapour is a gas, but that's not a gas generator in this sense. It's a specific technical usage.Wolfkeeper 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gas generator[edit]

My suggestion would be to find three durably archived attestations of this usage, other than a dictionary or glossary, as described in WT:CFI. Looking at the Wikipedia article I still do not see the specificity you describe other than an uncited claim the term "usually" refers to a combustion device. Furthermore, your personal edits to that article are those which defined it as a device, as opposed to the original reference to the fuels or process - which suggests it specifically cannot be used to support your argument. - Amgine/talk 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not difficult at all to find 3 references to this term, it's in all major aerospace text books. I also don't understand your complaint- a gas generator is a device that creates large quantities of gas and usually is a bit like a solid rocket, or sometimes uses liquids to form the gas; but the term very definitely refers to a device that is intended/designed to be used in a particular way. Another example of a gas generator is on airliners, the emergency oxygen supply for the passengers often (but not always) uses a gas generator. In short you've knee-jerked deleted something completely without cause. Don't do that.Wolfkeeper 03:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also completely question the wisdom of somebody, anybody, unilaterally deleting entire articles without any checks and balances, at whim, as you have done here. Except in the most clearcut cases of vandalism or whatever, this is a really bad idea.Wolfkeeper 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A much better way would be to tag it, and if it's not handled in a reasonable period to then delete it. A week perhaps, writing a dictionary is not a race. It would also be a good thing if the tagger and deleter was not the same person- that's just open to abuse, intentional or not.Wolfkeeper 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block? What for?[edit]

Today I've visited en.wiktionary and first thing I got was your message [1] that I'm blocked for "disruptive behaviour", "based on this [[2]]"?
So instead of contributing to mainspace, as I originally intended, I'm replying to your message.
Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but it seems, that according to you, I don't have right to reply?
[3] "Intimidating behaviour/harassment"???
Amgine, how can you say such things? How dare you? Do you know what those words mean?
harassment: 1) Persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress. Yes, persistent attacks and criticism, by a group of persons, primarily by Ivan Štambuk, then by Stephen G. Brown, then by you. If you haven't realised that by now, now you got it explicitly. Your messages are distressing me.
Second meaning of harassment is "To deliberately pester or annoy". A group of persons is doing that against me. Whenever I log here, I see message "you'll be blocked", "you're blocked"... see my talkpage. See messages behind mine on talkpages (and who wrote them).
intimidate: "The act of making timid or fearful or of deterring by threats." Threats can be realised or not. In my case, they were 2 times (I was blocked 2 times).
Does "harassment" mean that anybody can block me for fun, post messages addressed to me (but all over the project, so I have to search them) and then I have no right to defend myself when being named in accusations?
"Disruptive behaviour"??? Amgine, please, read. Tell me where do you find "disruptive behaviour"? Here're my all contributions [4] in main namespace [5] in namespace Talk: [6] in namespace User talk [7] in namespace Wiktionary [8] in namespace Wiktionary talk [9] in namespace Citation [10].
Thanks. Kubura 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems fairly uncommon, but definitely in use. Also some less common of the whole phrase "nez retroussé", usually in italics. Circeus 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ello *waves*[edit]

Yup i knew i'd get in trouble but i couldn't replicate the Tibetan like the Devanagari templates. Would we really have a Wiktionary entry for 'Tibetan script'? e.g. English script, Alphabet, Arabic script. Tibetan script to my knowledge doesn't have a name all of its own :-(
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

u can meddle with my confuzzlment anytime :-P. i was just going to create it based on Arabic script but through your munificence it is now realized.
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 12:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
do both of these hold the semantic field of 'Tibetan script -> name' or is it like uchen (དབུ་ཅན་) = 'print' and umé (དབུ་མེད་) = 'hand-written'?
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I ask what elements you recommend a Tibetan entry for English Wiktionary should hold? Format?
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 13:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Amgine. You can link the component words of a phrase’s inflexion line using the sg= parameter thus. BTW, Tibetan scripts sees use as a plural, so you may want to revise the definition to reflect its countability (something like “Any of the abugida writing systems of Indic origin…”). Regards,  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

xe, xyr, xyrself, &c.[edit]

Hi there. Could you add entries with pronunciatory transcriptions for those epicœne pronouns you use please? Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: usurpation of username Amgine on it:wp[edit]

Sure. Having that user no log entries, I see no trouble. May you please leave your request by following these instructions? Bye. --Paginazero 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:js Word look up tool for fr.Wikinews[edit]

Hi ! I'm really proud of this tool! It's really nice! But careful: when you clic on a word followed by a ",", "," and so one, this tool search the word with this ponctuation for example cabinet, will give the link [11] ... but it's really nice. Otourly 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another problem: [12] Otourly 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really good now! Just search on but it's a good thing. Otourly 07:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could be interested to add two link:
  • One for the feedback about the script (bugs)
  • Another when the couldn't show the wiktionary entry for create the missing page.
Otourly 11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Word wrap in lists[edit]

  • This
  • is
  • a
    • sub-list
    • within
    • a
  • list

Quick list of urls I'd prefer not to lose/open windows[edit]

Logo vote[edit]

Hi. I don't know if you saw the comment I made on m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh asking for clarification of what you meant by a "distributed project-wide discussion", but I don't think we'll get anywhere if not all the possibilities are made clear. The discussion seems to have died down a bit so keeping the discussion going, in whatever form is decided, seems to be the only chance we have of making any progress on deciding on which voting method will be used. Thanks --Yair rand 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as it is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4.
Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly didn't mean to offend you. I apologize for the unfavourable "spam" above. Thank you for your patience. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If U have the time, please respond to the information I added and the question I asked in User talk:Thecurran#Logo_vote. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ivan's block[edit]

I really don't think it's helpful to block a useful contributor who was expanding an entry, just because they changed the language header. Since all those working in Slavic languages are agreed on how they want to deal with these entries, this seems an unnecessarily argumentative move. Ƿidsiþ 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Amgine[edit]

Don't you have some other things to do, wasting bytes on IRC or something, other than waste my time? :) --Ivan Štambuk 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you please refrain from interpreting edits in languages you have no clue about. --Ivan Štambuk 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a big difference between 1) content edits 2) maintenance edits --Ivan Štambuk 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casual ponderings re: Wiktionary community and NPOV[edit]

I've been asked not to 'bother' a productive contributor who is making controversial edits because xe is a productive contributor. It's important to note that when the quality of those contributions is asked for there is no objective measure available: the user is considered an expert, and considers xyr edits of excellent quality, while the user's opponents are considered native speakers, and consider xyr edits as fundamentally biased. There is no objective measure to the quality.

But to restate this fact: there is a very productive editor who may or may not be adding thousands of POV contributions to Wiktionary - we just don't know.

(For the sake of fairness - I have discussed the edits with native speakers and academics at UBC who have said the quality appears to be high, but are biased to a specific political [their word, not mine] point of view. I have an appointment to meet with a professor about this next week.)

And I've been asked by a community member not to bother them - solely based on their productivity. This seems a very dangerous position to take, though I can certainly understand it.

What I can state objectively is the user does have a strong POV regarding the status of languages which are part of the macro-language Serbo-Croation. In and of itself this is not bad; it's clearly encouraging the user to produce a lot of content. However, it is also encouraging the user to remove language sections which do not fall within xyr POV, replacing them with higher quality entries which reflect xyr view.

This removal should not be tolerated.

There are a range of reasons to retain - and restore - those language sections this user would like to remove. Language headers are used to create metadata from Wiktionary's database for external use, including a number of translation tools. Navigation within Wiktionary for readers is harmed as they do not see the language header they are looking for. Category membership - used for both navigation and metadata - is removed by the user when "consolidating" words under a single language header.

Further, it is more effort to remove language sections than to leave them in place. The user has the choice to leave those sections xe does not approve of unimproved. There can be no honest claim they present either an impediment to xyr efforts or increase the work xe volunteers to do.

The removal of language variants/dialects sections harms the mission of Wiktionary to contain all words in all languages.

I am sincerely interested, what "political views" did those academics of yours had in mind? Did they mention some particular ideology or a political viewpoint, or it was some vague phrase? :) (One should have in mind that the notion of Serbo-Croatian precedes Communist Yugoslavia by more than a century, as well as all of those future nation-states which were part of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire at that period). --Ivan Štambuk 19:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their opinion was you were a "Yugoslav", though I was not able to understand what they meant by that (it was pretty clear they did not mean "communist".) I do not have evidence of your assertion regarding Serbo-Croatian, and have seen some revisionist (that is, I do not trust it) evidence to the contrary. One thing I have not yet found is peer-reviewed evidence supporting your assertion the multiple languages are invalid as descriptors. This being the crux of any dispute I might have with your actions, it interests me. - Amgine/talk
Then they're obviously a bunch of ignorants. This "assertion" of mine that Serbo-Croatian (both the name and the notion of one South Slavic languages) dates to the first half of the 19th century can be verified in any handbook. I already gave dozens of citations and references from the world's top experts on Slavic languages and esp. Serbo-Croatian, from edited books and journals, to you, Ullmann and other interested parties on several related discussions, but I doubt that you even read them (I don't think you can understand them at all). So please spare me of this "didn't prove" rhetoric. --Ivan Štambuk 04:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ullmann Bot[edit]

As per, there is no consensus to run this bot. As per WT:BOT all bots require community approval and must not make controversial edits. Please desist. Conrad.Irwin 17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All edits you have made so far incorrectly sort the language sections, please either revert these edits or sort them correctly. Conrad.Irwin 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illegal bot use[edit]

You must know it's illegal to use fully automated functions on a non-bot account. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{attention|bs|restored section may need attention}}[edit]

And who exactly is supposed to take care of all those? You? Me? Those lazy nationalist provokers? If they truly cared so much on their "separate languages", they would've already added all those entries (semi-)manually. It takes 20 lines of code to properly generate them from the merged entries. (But they didn't, since the only thing they do care is their sick ego, and how to eliminate me from this project by means of some childish reverse psychology.)

Your behavior is disruptive and extremely annoying. You are completely free to add separate B/C/S/M sections manually (assuming you know enough of the language to add and verify them, which you don't). On the other hand, you are not allowed to run unauthorized bot from your username account doing non-maintenance edits, especially not after I elaborated in BP on why it makes better sense not to have these "restored sections" at all, rather than have them in a half-baked state.

Stop acting as Ullmann's bulldog and thing with your own head for once. --Ivan Štambuk 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted all of your bot edits because it would simply take hours to manually check and expand them, to be all in sync with ==Serbo-Croatian== section. Please don't re-run Ullmann's bot again (and unblock yourself for other type of editing). --Ivan Štambuk 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I protest this reversion. You are not required - nor is anyone - to either check or expand them, or to keep them in sync. I will restore these sections at a later point when I can build or borrow a tool to emulate Cirwin's "loophole cheating" (xyr description, not mine) bots.
Secondarily, your language is abusive and out of character for an administrator. You have been warned repeatedly to be polite. Do not be rude or insulting on my talk page to either myself or other contributors on this site.
It appears to me, however, you are not behaving as an administrator, but as a POVior, crusading to press your belief on this site. It is also my opinion you are completely ignorant of how Wiktionary data is reused - using those very language sections you have been removing - to create metadata allowing other softwares to access the content. - Amgine/talk 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dude, you unilaterally ran an unauthorized bot on your username account, that did great deal of nonsense edits, ignoring the entire BP discussion on this highly-contested matter altogether. I find this action of yours an extreme case of abuse of editing privileges, where you (for some unknown reason to me) try to perpetuate Ullmann's futile trollfest in a matter you have absolutely no personal knowledge or interest in. If you again try to re-run this bot without permission I'll report you to meta along with your pal and a vote for your desysop and reprimand block will be initiated.
If you need an algorithm for the extraction B/C/S/M metacrap from the merged entries, I can provide it. But something tells me that that's not what you're really interested in, are you. --Ivan Štambuk 04:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, really, all I want is the database to include the language sections/categories so any simplistic parser, or reader, can locate the terms in recognized languages. That really is the only dog I have in this. My goal is to get wiktionary content reused in as many venues as it would be valuable in. Since meta data is not an option in Mediawiki, we use proxies like language sections and other headers to sort through entries. - Amgine/talk 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the merged sections you can generate words that are peculiar to only one of the standards. All you need to do is take care of (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian) labels in the definition lines. And this wouldn't even be the problem in 99% of those 5% different words, because cases when there are words with the same spelling but different meaning in standards are really rare. For en-SC translations there is no issue as these are kept separate in the tables. I really see no difference in parsing a B/C/S/M L2 section name and a label. --Ivan Štambuk 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing me out at it. I have replied. Hopefully you find mine input constructive. TestPilottalk to me! 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It just struck me..[edit]Έλλη_Κοκκίνου_(Elli_Kokkinou):Δεν_Χρειάζεται


Hi, please look at my edits here, you left the gender unspecified. Also, if you can read French, you could base your edits on fr:nécrologie (for etymology and pronunciation), checking all the info you find with CNRTL. Hope it helps :) Pharamp 20:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange additions.[edit]

Hi there. An anon has just created three subpages to your user page. See User:Amgine/lvotephun2/effectively User:Amgine/lvotephun2/contributor and User:Amgine/lvotephun2/never. If you don't want them, just mark them for deletion. SemperBlotto 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to self: Translations plurals[edit]

It's stupid to have (for example):

  1. plural of scientifique

Non-base-lang plurals should be akin to

  1. scientists, plural of scientifique

Could you take another look when you have a chance?

RuakhTALK 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! —RuakhTALK 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swap meet[edit]

Wikinews:Story preparation/Magicians Club Holds Annual Swap Meet .....thanks....I'm looking forward to finishing this article.Buddpaul 16:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi mate, I seem to keep missing you on IRC. When is the best time to catch you? - Cartman02au 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please follow the correct standards in the translation tables. Pinyin transcription is not a valid translation. ---> Tooironic 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Amgine/talk 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't that template just go to RFDO? --Yair rand (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidence submission A, evidence submission B. No words which are evidenced to be in use according to CFI should go to RFDO; neither should their use be apostrophised as inappropriate/incorrect. Anyone here remember the war(s) over tidal wave? en.WT is even proscribing kilogram as a measurement of weight, as though it doesn't happen every time anyone steps/puts something on a scale. - Amgine/talk 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poll on formatting of etymologies[edit]

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote on formatting of etymologies[edit]

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you prefer that I no longer send you any notifications on polls and votes? --Dan Polansky 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. However I would prefer if you did not instantiate straw polls which are not regarding strict policy. See meta:Polls are evil and meta:Instruction creep. - Amgine/talk 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wholeheartedly disagree with the essay meta:Polls are evil. I do not think that you and me are ever going to agree on this one. I am convinced that polls and votes can very useful. Anyway, if you ever make the decision that you no longer want to receive this sort of notification from me, just let me know. --Dan Polansky 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A note on instruction creep: We had instruction creep before CFI was locked. Ever since CFI was locked to be changed only by a vote, it has stopped growing. A vote that I have started has removed the attributive-use rule from CFI, a rule that very few people supported in the form in which it was formulated. It was the possibility to vote on things that enabled the requirement on voting on changes to CFI, and thus stopped the uncontrolled growth of CFI. A recent vote removed another section from CFI. CFI created without votes is not based on consensus: it is based on top-down regulation set up be people who are pushing their own views. If what you are saying is that there should be no CFI, this would have other repercussions, I think. --Dan Polansky 22:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, personally, do not have much interest in CFI, or in policy polls. In general, policy is "the way things are done", and only written down when/where there is conflict. In the specific, I believe the many languages of Wiktionary should discuss and harmonize such concepts as CFI based on current academic standards. Most likely this will involve a form of live-language corpus to be used as an arbiter, but again it's not a particular interest for me although I do have some textual analysis software. - Amgine/talk 00:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. As I said, I do not want to bug you with notifications on polls and votes that you find meaningless, so just drop me a line whenever you feel you don't want to get any notification. --Dan Polansky 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DPL test (to make servers cry)[edit]

English Nouns without pronunciations[edit]

storm center
common daisy
gateway community
dice roll
conversational journal
conversational journaling
liminal space
furniture poverty
soft grunge
that girl
plane joint
reversed pall
pall inverted
pall reversed
cashew nutshell liquid
cap and ball
canyon wren
canine madness
vowel killer
cam wheel
Canadian hemp
camouflage discipline
call waiting
ca'ing whale
cactus deermouse
cactus mouse
cactus moth
cacao butter
cabana set
buzz track
buzz session
butterfly bomb
bus mile
business machine
business reply
slings and arrows
bustard quail
bushman's poison
bushman poison
Betsey bug
accountability buddy
benzenediazonium tetrafluoroborate
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
atomic typo
cold flour
Beesley's lark
cable spaghetti
ivy geranium
ivy owl
iterated integral


Any chance you would add {{Babel}} to your user page? It would also make the user page bluelinked, and it is kind of nice to have the user page of a long-time editor bluelinked rather than redlinked. --Dan Polansky 11:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no chance I would voluntarily add Babel to my userpage. The underlying theory of the Babel presentation is wrong. The templates have little actual usage beyond vanity. And I subscribe to the original purpose for user namespace on Wikimedia projects (circa 2004, so mostly irrelevant at the current time): User pages are for the over-all improvement of the wiki. - Amgine/ t·e 15:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the purposes of Babel is to make it easier to assess the likelihood that an editor has made an error when editing in a particular language. I find it kind of nice when people have Babel on their user pages, and do not see it as vain boasting.
At least adding "I am Amgine and I am contributing mostly English entries" or the like to your user page would be nice. Furthermore, you can link to all subpages from your user page, using {{subpages}}. Again, a redlinked user page of a long-term contributor seems odd. --Dan Polansky 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sum of parts[edit]

If it's written as one word, it can't be SOP. That's just how it is around here. If you want to change that, start a thread in the WT:BP, but don't go tagging perfectly fine entries for deletion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have new messages Hello, Amgine. You have new messages at Metaknowledge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding your problem[edit]

However, I *do* have a programming problem creating separate dictionaries for sr, hr, sh, and bs captchas from en.WT dumps. If you have a simple solution to such a problem, I would very much appreciate knowing what it is.

The algorithm is relatively straightforward:

  1. Meanings which have (Bosnian) context label are Bosnian-standard only. Same for others. Labels are combinable.
  2. Words which have (Ijekavian) in alternative forms section are not Croatian and Montenegrin, unless they have (Kajkavian) or (Chakavian) labels in which they are Croatian.
  3. Otherwise it's a shared word across SC varieties.

Separation by L2s could be done at the presentation layer at the server if there were better decoupling among layers (i.e. all of the dumb data which is 97% of Wiktionary's content being stored on WikiData and fetched individually by ID or in group by query, as opposed to generated through templates and Lua using the primitive but convenient structured-wikicode-as-database principle).

I believe only those words which existed previous to unification could, by searching back through revisions (and therefore possibly including errors which were later corrected), be properly assigned.

Your beliefs are mistaken. Almost all of the unified SC entries were checked by native speakers, apart from few hundred words left for cleanup in a specific category. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corpus - selected English texts[edit]

















































































































































Honorary mentions post-1900[edit]


You're no longer an admin, but you're patrolling the recent changes and it's helpful, though not as helpful as it could be because I still have to patrol the edits you've undone. Want to be a rollbacker (and maybe patroller too)? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Edit to steal[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the definition of steal. This, I am certain, was in error - I added what I would definitely say is an important part of the definition, therefore it was a constructive edit. Captain Cornwall (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello and welcome to Wiktionary. I just wanted to comment on your edit for γειτονιά because I think neighborhood is the American spelling of neighbourhood. If you disagree with this, please reply back. Thank you for your contributions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. I just saw your helpful comment on the French translation thread and thought you might be able to help me. I recently created an entry at entrejeu, with the sole definition "(soccer) midfield". This is also the only meaning given on the French Wiktionary page. However, I know there are other meanings because I came across several examples of non-football-related usage while trying to find citations. What are the meanings of these other senses? I have started a list of quotations here for some context (translations would be very much appreciated). Cheers, BigDom 11:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, yeah I suspected as much about the possibility of it being re-invented on the fly whenever it's used. I've asked a couple of other editors who are active in French too so we'll see what they say. Thanks for your help. BigDom 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tenisové hřiště[edit]

Hello whats wring with tenisové hřiště?

User page[edit]

Would you put something to your user page, like, if you don't really want to put things there, "Hi."? The user page not created results in your signature containing a redlink, which looks like something's missing. Whenever I see it, the redlink says "fill me" to me, which I obviously cannot do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to this, you said on my talk page: "We have had this conversation before. It is good we are both consistent."
The previous conversation was about Babel. Above, I am not talking about Babel, merely about making the user page redlinked in the signature. Would you care to explain why you would not want to make your signature blue? Please, if you choose to respond, respond here, not on my talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As discussed in that previous conversation, I subscribe to the position that user pages are for the over-all improvement of the project. I have strong opinions regarding this. They are unlikely to change to satisfy your personal aversion to redlinks. - Amgine/ t·e 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Placing "Hi." or ever empty " " to the user page would cause no detriment to the project. The aversion to redlinks is not personal; redlink appearance is intentionally designed to catch attention and motivate people to fill them; otherwise, much less conspicuous color than red would have been chosen. If placing " " to your user page is something you absolutely do not want to do, you may consider changing the signature to no longer point to a page which you do not intend to fill. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have altered my signature. - Amgine/ t·e 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the edit summary, you said: 'Now you have stepped over my definition of "the line.")' By my standards, edit summaries should not say things that are not said in the posts that accompany them. Anyway, this particular instance of my trying to talk sense seems to have failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allow me to explain, and I will attempt to use small words. I stated I altered my signature. I added a span to color all plain text red in my signature. I am currently researching how to style the links as underlined red. These actions are in response to your harrassment on my talk page. I would expect it to be clear, both from the actions and statement, that you have offended me. This is a common definition for the phrase "crossing the line." The edit summary states what is unutterably obvious in the edit. - Amgine/ t·e 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well no, "to offend" is not one of the definitions of cross the line. The definition "to go too far or do something unacceptable" given in the entry is a meaning that I recognize. I find it okay to discuss people's signatures, and I do not find it inappropriate, let alone offending. This conversation has not been very productive, and I did not have high hopes it would have been, but I have tried. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if it would be a better idea to back off for now and let them ruin the article until they get bored or an admin comes, instead of fighting an uphill battle. —suzukaze (tc) 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert war[edit]

The revert war you made at zoosexuality was a really poor idea; nearly 20 reverts in about 1 hour. Of course, you were right to revert that anon brigade, but without admin tools to block them, you can never win such a revert war. Fast-moving revert wars are a bad idea since they produce page alternation with no benefit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan, here's an exercise in interacting with humans: compare suzukaze-c's message above and the one you just wrote. Both conveyed the same idea about the same issue, but one was respectful and the other was purely critical. You've recently been told by Amgine that you're crossing the line and have ignored that, so it would be best for you to step back and consider your actions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Off the Reservation"[edit]

I do not understand your motivation in repeatedly editing my clarification for the term "Off the Reservation". It is important to note that Native peoples were confined to the reservation and restricted from entering White spaces in order to understand why the term is derogatory. It is highly offensive and may be used indiscriminately amongst people who are racist or who have no knowledge of the term. Perhaps if people understood the term correctly it would not be used so frequently. The only article used as a reference to the term illustrates its derogatory nature. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual unbiased knowledge. Your attempts to sanitize the information is to continue a narrative of racism. There is a book called Race, Space and the Law to which you can refer to further educate yourself on the subject of the history of Native confinement to reservations, that can give you the contextual information necessary to edit the terms. Please do not continue to edit this entry from a place of ignorance.

Your argument that etymology does not include historical information is incorrect. Etymological definitions often include the historical origin of words. You merely have to peruse a dictionary to ascertain that this is true. To reduce the definition to "leaving a reservation to which "one" was restricted" does not give enough contextual information to let anyone reading the definition understand that it is a derogatory term. The feigned confusion others have stated as to the origin is illogical, there is ample historical evidence and the word reservation indicates a space that was set aside. This space was set aside for the use of Native peoples and they were restricted from leaving to go to White spaces. They were segregated. When an Native peoples left the reservation, they were breaking with the rules and venturing into territory they were forbidden from entering, which is analogous to how the term is used today, when someone breaks away from following the rules and goes on their own path they are said to be "going off the reservation". In Canada the phrase is recognized as derogatory and is not used at all in polite conversation.


Can you please add me to the AWB checkpage at Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. I have AWB rights on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Simple English Wiktionary and I would like to help out in cleaning up formatting and typos here. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excretion vs egestion[edit]

These "Wiktionary" pages treat the terms "excrete" and "egest" as being synonymous with each other. This is not biologically correct. There are two different things that are done in the bathroom at different times, urination (excretion) and defecation (egestion). Excretion does not accurately refer to defecation, and egestion most certainly does not refer to urination. These are two distinctly different biological functions that operate independently of each other. If you don't believe me, look this up, or even look through Wikipedia.

It may be true that certain people use the terms interchangeably, but I believe that the biological distinction should be noted accordingly on Wiktionary.

en.Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary; it is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive in its word senses. Usage notes do point out where some uses are preferred, or deprecated, such as in overly-precise jargons. You may wish to re-examine the relevant sections of the WT:ELE. (That is, you are perfectly welcome to hold your own opinions, but perhaps you should not attempt to enforce them on others or this project.) - Amgine/ t·e 01:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP shouldn't have reworked the def like that, but if the terms are distinguished in the biological discourse, it should be mentioned somewhere. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not, except in the most extreme examples. E.g. humans cannot 'digest' any form of fibre, however their gut biome can process some, commonly called dietary fibre, and the human host can process the bacterial 'excrement' (e.g. inulin.) Which is why human feces is described as excrement - the vast majority is processed biologically, if not necessarily by the specific organism in question. - Amgine/ t·e 01:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, I defer to you! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Excrement" is really a misnomer because it deals with products that have been egested, not excreted. "Excretion" may be an ambiguous term, but "egestion" is definitely not. My computer's spell-check isn't even recognizing this word. In dealing with this term in any sense, egestion refers to fiber and other undigested materials. It is the opposite of ingestion and refers exclusively to defecation, which is the end of the digestive process. I don't think anyone, medical or otherwise, would ever use the term "egestion" to refer to urination, which is the most common and accurate example of excretion. The two terms cannot be seen as interchangeable.

  • No. Egestion is the removal of material from the body or from a cell - the opposite of ingestion. It can refer to sweat, urine or feces (from the body) or of particles or molecules (from a cell). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think this rollback of yours was in error Nurg (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I would like to know why you delete my edit on the part of the Spanish definition of Gringo. The definition that preceded it lacked a source, and even then I did not see you eliminating it. Tadeoska (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You know that squid are octopodous but have tentacles, not legs, right? 15:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know nothing of the sort. They are 8-armed with two tentacles, in the cephalopods. But the key point is the sense is more clearly stated without ever-increasing specificity and exceptions. Your extension was in good faith, but did not improve the sense. - Amgine/ t·e 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decreased the specificity, because "legs" is too specific and therefore wrong. 15:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the root of the word refers to feet, which you did not mention. It seemed to me your extension did not improve the clarity. I am certainly possibly wrong. - Amgine/ t·e 15:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Manufactory" is an archaic word for "factory"[edit]

"Manufactory" is an old word for "factory." This addition to the Wiki 'Factory' page is informational and educational - especially for those of us who read old literature. It does nothing but add to the history, background, and knowledge about the word 'factory' - besides being an interesting fact for logophiles and seekers of knowledge in general. For exactly what reason would anyone think that is inappropriate?

les Anglais débarquent[edit]

I think the translation of “débarquer” as “to depart” is completely wrong. If anything, they are close to antonyms, since “débarquer” means to land, to disembark.

I’m going to apply the same edits from this account instead of as an anonymous user, in case that was an automated revert. Dr. G. von D. (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]