User talk:BigBadBen

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

Welcome!

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! By the way, if you want to help out at WT:RFV, you'll want to pay particular attention to WT:CFI. Cynewulf 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proto-words[edit]

You don't need to italicize them explicitely, or wikify them (that's even forbidden, since they ought to reside in Appendix: namespace :). Just use {{proto}} template, like this That way you get categorization, and template {proto} can generate link to the entry of proto word in Appendix namespace if it exist. Cheers --11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your contributions.

You might be interested in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion; in particular, note that inclusion in another dictionary is not a criterion for inclusion here.

RuakhTALK 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RFV cites[edit]

Hi, thanks for your hard work. I was wondering if I could ask that you put quotations on the pages themselves, and simply comment on WT:RFV that you'd done so? (Or if there are fewer than three, they can be preserved in the Citations: space.) Thanks again! DAVilla 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also please check out Wiktionary:Quotations for format recommendations. It's not always hard and fast, but there is a preference for commas over dashes or hyphens. DAVilla 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Entry format[edit]

Thank you for clarifying the verb senses of freak; that has definitely improved the entry. However, please take note of how I modified your additions to freak. This is the standard format we use for entries. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

{{term}}[edit]

{{term}} is used for mentioned terms (i.e. not actually used in "running text"), and here you seem to switched it to usual etymology templates. Note that this particular edit sorted the the Old English word into Category:Old Frisian derivations and others - which is wrong, but failed to sort it into Category:Proto-Germanic derivations - which is correct. See how I formated it here. Note the lang= parameters to {{proto}} and {{term}}. I hope this is not as confusing as it seems --Ivan Štambuk 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not confusing at all, that was what I was looking for in the beginning, but never really understood the instructions or failed to find the correct instructions on how to do it correctly... Thanks for clearing that up to a newbie... ;) Feedback is always appreciated...--BigBadBen 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ful - tidy up[edit]

Hello there, I just tidied up the Old English section of ful. I know that you did the edits back in November 2007, but I just wanted to make you aware of the changes. Regards --Williamsayers79 13:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for cleaning it up and letting me know... I probably would not have noticed but it is always nice to know...--BigBadBen 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RfV process[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. You're clearly getting the unwritten "hang of this". I'm not sure about the specifics of the protocol about rfv tag removal, so this is not some kind of official "warning". I try to leave it for the admin who does the archiving, lately TDR. Part of the reason is to make sure that more than one pair of eyes have run over the citations. If we do what makes his job easier, he seems happy enough. For example he wants us to make our "vote" clear on RfD. I have taken to putting "cited" in bold to items in RfV to try to get others to look at the cites. HTH DCDuring TALK 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not 100% happy with sense given for get the hang of. I thought the important part was not "basic" but "intuitive", "tacit", "unwritten", but I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment... and it does seem that I am getting the hang of this slowly but surely...
about the RFV tag removal, as you may have noted, they where only on the GERMAN words, which I am very comfortable with (in doing so), as they where blatantly wrong... other RFVs will not be touched by me at all, since I do believe as you have mentioned, that more eyes should see these and comment on them (or cite them)... the idea about making the term "cited" in bold, is actually a very good tip there, thank you for that one...
The sense for get the hang of, as it is written now, seems pretty good up to the point of the "unconscious performance", to be able to get the hang of something requires some consciousness in what one is doing, e.g. with practice or just simply by repetitive doing...
PS: I always welcome constructive criticism... --BigBadBen 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Our consciousness has evolved to give a huge amount of over-confidence in its capabilities, but that is just the conclusion of the psychologists and neuroscientists that I like. It is not how the word is used exactly. But I didn't want the element on unconscious performance to be neglected. One is usually conscious of something, but it is usually not as much as one thinks one if conscious of. The supervising brain gives us the belief that we could control whatever we choose to. We obviously are not consciously aware of controlling the movements of individual muscles as we type. We are not really aware of typing letters as we get past our hunt-and-peck learning stage. At some point we are not aware that we are typing. And so on.
ITOW, feel free to edit the definition to make it comport better with how the word is actually used. My own advocacy of a point of view will interfere with my ability to recollect how folks think about this. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Almost blew me away with the philosophical explosion there... ;) ... I changed it, and took care to keep the unconscious performance, albeit trimmed it down to an almost, due to the way I would understand to get the hang of it (e.g. to understand how something functions by doing it)... see if it is OK and if not, it can be reversed without much hassle...--BigBadBen 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I may add links and entries for in the zone, the sports cliche. In sports, there was a time when a good performance was called "unconscious". "Man he hit 8 out of 10 from 30 feet. He was, like, unconscious." But my memory plays tricks on me so I better find cites. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

abet[edit]

Hallo, ich habe deine Änderung in abet bemerkt und ich möchte dich fragen, warum du den Diphthong ei beim altnordischen Wort mit einem langen Vokal geschrieben hast? Ich habe das Wort in drei Wörterbüchern nachgeschlagen und nirgends ist das lange i (í or ī) zu sehen. Ich habe nie einen Diphthong im Altnordischen gesehen, der einen langen Vokal enthält. Eine Quelle wäre sicherlich hilfreich. Bogorm 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, war lange Zeit weg vom Kasten... und um ehrlich zu sein, ich weiss nicht mehr wie oder wo her ich diese info hatte...--BigBadBen 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)