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:
- Wiktionary Tutorial
- Community Portal
- Entry layout explained
- How to edit a page
- How to start a page
- Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
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 the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Gerard Foley 04:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
my apologies. Will be more careful in the future. Anemos
Not a pain, I'm new here, you've got experience, so clean up my path and I'll learn as I go. I suppose then we just add 'demi-' to the 'demi' page via redirect?
Just trying to help out, was looking through the wanted list. :)
You're probably getting fed up with me today! Adverbs get their own entry, not a redirect to the adjective. SemperBlotto 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Nah, not fed up at all, just give me some time and I'll be a pro wiktionarian in no time. Promise!
Language is at level 2 not 3 - it is ==English== not ===English=== SemperBlotto 10:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing?
You change the names of all the entries to abbreviations and anyone one who searchs the proper title does not get directed to the proper page. I dont care if you provide the abbreviated forms within the entry, but abbreviated titles is not appropriate and needs to be the proper title. Make sense? Anemos 22:51, 20, February 2006 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't make sense for a dictionary. No one has gone around changing the proper title to the abbreviation; you were changing the abbreviations to the full title. In some cases replacing the correct abbreviation entry with redirects. That is not good. There is supposed to be an entry for the abbreviation, and an entry for the full title. Description of the Books of the Bible themselves belong on Wikipedia (as we are not an encyclopedia.) Our sister project Wikipedia is very happy to use redirects for everything. But we are discussing the words about the concepts, not the concepts themselves. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- How does putting an abbreviation entry to a redirect not make sense? Its an abbreviation for something else, therefore it SHOULD have the abbreviation within the entry, which is what I already said if you didnt read my post fully. But having the title for a book abbreviated as the title of its definition page is non-sense. Books in the bible arent abbreviated when you go to their chapters so why would you abbreviate them in a dictionary? Including the abbreviated form within the definition is fine. Making it the title page is not. I dont see what the point is in having two pages for essentially the same thing. And secondly I dont need you to school me about putting a description in for the books of the bible because I have not put in one description of the books if you havent investigated already. I have only organized what someone else started and labeled them based on what # of book they are of the bible, which you will find in ANY online or unabridged dictionary. So please save me the lecture for a problem which I have not created. --Anemos
- I did read your post; you are incorrect. Lexically, there is an enormous distinction between an abbreviation and the term it abbreviates. We make that distinction; Wikipedia concerns itself with concepts not terms. So the redirect might be appropriate on Wikipedia, but it is not appropriate here.
- And likewise, Ive been working on it. I know theres a difference between the two and I'm still learning how to edit pages and whatnot so give me a chance. Again I didnt create the entries that are not capitalized. I just started off where someone else ended. And you will notice on the one or two entries I have made, they are Capitalized. So please dont correct me for what I didnt do wrong --Anemos
- Fair enough. I shall give you benefit of the doubt. What I saw was a move of numbers to Numbers with a comment indicating that the Book of the Bible was the only correct meaning (again, perhaps a misinterpretation.) Please note that I think you misinterpreted some of what I've said. I wasn't "schooling you" I was making the example as unambiguous as possible. Please extend the same benefit of the doubt to me as well. The pay here is the same for all of us. :-)
- Do you have any questions about the edits I made to numbers or Numbers? I am happy to answer questions and discuss the changes...perhaps there are things I missed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No I have no questions. I think we both know the original state of "Numbers" being redirected to "numbers" but actually representing "Numbers" was wrong. Instead of cutting the content of numbers and pasting it into Numbers, I moved the page to Numbers. Thats the proper procedure I was told to do. The plan was afterwards to THEN fix the "numbers" page to a proper definition. But you went ahead and did that for me while I was figuring out the best way to make a page that stands for the plural of something, and you assumed I just hadnt covered my steps to cleaning up the Bible page. --Anemos
- Please! I didn't assume that; I was misled by your edit summary: "18:17, February 27, 2006 Anemos m (numbers moved to Numbers: Numbers is a proper noun which requires Capitalization)". --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)