User talk:Brya

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


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 the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)



I'm sorry, but unless you fix it first, I'm going to have to undo most of your change to wood. While that meaning certainly is correct, the numbering of the definitions needs to remain intact on Wiktionary. The translations below, refer to numbered meanings.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it back! I did not notice that you added the numbering. Well done! Thank you.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It is nice to be welcome! I like dictionaries, and I will probably contribute a limited set of items linked to my specialties. I don't expect to add much general items. Brya 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Taxonomic entries[edit]

The changes that you are making to taxonomic entries are destroying the ability to taxonavigate - you are removing the hierarchical links. Do you have a reason for doing this? SemperBlotto 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that I am destroying any hierarchical links, except ones that were utterly wrong and misleading. I am assuming that wiktionary entries should give precise definitions of words. It looks to me that people who want to taxonavigate can do that in either wikipedia or wikispecies, both of which can be accessed from all these entries.
Actually, I have not made any changes to taxonomic entries, only to nomenclatural ones. Is there any room in wiktionary for taxonomy? Brya 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
An afterthought. If the problem is that there is no link between, say, Fabales and Magnoliopsida then, yes, that is deliberate. Any taxonomic relationship is a point of view, although a rigorously scientific point of view: any 'taxonomic fact' is only 'true' relative to that taxonomic point of view. The Fabales as regarded by wikipedia are as defined by APG. As within this same taxonomic framework of APG the Magnoliopsida as they occur in the wikipedia-taxoboxes does not exist, and furthermore CANNOT exist, each wikipedia-plant-taxobox is a contradictio-in-terminis. The taxonomic relation portrayed there exists exclusively in wikipedia (and presumably wikispecies) but not out in the real world. The people in Wikipedia (in as far as they care) are somewhat aware of this and presumably it will be put right sooner or later (I hope).
However it very much looks like the kind of discussion that has no place in wiktionary, as wiktionary is (or should be) concerned with definitions of words, and not really with scientific discussions of circumscription of taxa. Brya 21:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your contributions, good job. One small remark: we use the header "====Translations====" instead of "====Other languages====". Keep up the good work! — Vildricianus 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't particularly like the heading "translations" as this presupposes a very one-language point of view. This is not very happy in a multi-language dictionary. Brya 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Partly true, partly not. Translations are among the hardest aspects of this project to manage and organize. The current method allows enough flexibility and clarity to keep it fun. The complexity of languages and their interaction is no match for the current wiki software, I guess. — Vildricianus 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the complexity! I suppose we will see what happens down the line. Brya 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


hey, I thought Ebony and Black were Synonyms. 19:30, 30 April 2006 Emeka14 (Talk | contribs)

That would depend. Brya 11:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aversion to red links[edit]

Hi, Brya.

From your posts to Template talk:en-noun, I gather you are highly averse to red links. Perhaps they indicate a state of incompletion to you, perhaps you just dislike the color red, or perhaps there is another reason to dislike red links.

If you dislike signs of incompletion, I suggest it's better to be aware of an incompletion than to hide it. If you just dislike red, I can help you create a style sheet to change the color of those links, and eventually we can incorporate that option into Connel's Javascript preferences. If there is some other reason you dislike red links, let me know. Rod (A. Smith) 15:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do dislike red-links. Partly it is the color, which detracts from readability (for me and therefore probably to others). Partly it is wikipedia experience: wikipedia recognizes the undesirability of redlinks and has guidelines in place against them, except as a temporary measure ("under construction").
It looks to me that the template could generate a new page for the plural. It would be finicky to arrange this, but it would save a lot of time. The user could then just quickly inspect the new page for error, rather than go and create it for himself.
This may not be as bad a problem as the inability to redirect from wikipedia to wiktionary (which prevents moving pages from wikipedia to wiktionary, even when otherwise this would be in order), but still the en-noun template as it is now is discouraging editors from adding content to wiktionary. Also it does diminish readability for at least some users. Brya 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has matured to a phase where growth in breadth is now discouraged and emphasis is more on improving the quality of existing articles. With the goal of describing the lexicology of all words of over 7000 languages, English Wiktionary is in a much earlier state of its develoment. In our current stage (which at the present state of growth will last many years), red links are very much welcomed here. If you want to challenge the policy of linking to non-existent inflected forms, feel free to do so at WT:BP. To request a feature to create a draft, approvable inflected entry for each would-be red link inflection, please use WT:GP, because I cannot think of an easy way to do so. Rod (A. Smith) 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

redirects for plurals[edit]

Please don't use redirects for plural forms. I modified redwoods with the proper format for plurals. It can be used as an example for other entries. :) --Versageek 09:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We do not use redirects for plural forms on en.wiktionary. A standard page is created with basic headings and a definition line which contains the {{plural of|}} template. The {{en-noun}} template is not used in the plural entry. Please see redwoods for an example of a proper plural form page --Versageek 09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Wiktionary policy considers it vandalism to purposefully remove links. Please do not do this again. --EncycloPetey 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Admin)

I am not aware of removing any links. I just removed verifiably inaccurate material. Brya
Look at the edit history for Coniferae. Your changes are in plain sight for all to see. You cannot argue with plainly vberifiable facts. If you cannot acept your mistakes and refrain from making such changes in future, you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I cannot stop you from whatever you plan to do. If you cannot abide facts and block the people who are entering facts so be it. Brya 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that you are behaving as a vandal and refuse to admit to that fact or apologize for it. Instead, you argue. You are blocked for an hour. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Style point[edit]

Also, while I'm thinking of it, we do not italicize the inflection line (the one immediately following the part of speech header. The entries are multilingual, and should never be italicized on the inflection line, though there are other contexts where they may be capitalized sometimes. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, blocking a user to make sure he cannot respond to an argument brought forward by you may strike you as clever, but actually only emphasizes that you know how weak that argument was. Brya 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Brya, I noticed you removed the etymology section from this term, and I'm wondering why. If it was not correct, could I request that you note that, perhaps in the comments for your edit? Better yet, correct it or bring it up for discussion so that it can get corrected. Thanks! --Dvortygirl 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the fundamental flaws of the wikimedia project is that it is impossible to give a reason why something should not be included. Automatically, this reason will become part of the public record (and there is a considerable risk that it will become part of the entry). This is a lose-lose situation, leading to the preservation of nonsense. Much better to focus on the positive. Brya 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So why are you randomly removing stuff, then, without explanation? --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not randomly removing stuff, but carefully deleting deleterious material. Anybody really interested in why could answer that by spending a few moments with a dictionary. Brya 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted changes to coniferae to restore the etymology, and others. I know you think pinales ought to be called coniferae, but the wiktionary is NOT the place to push your POV. That you resort to blanking an etymology that does not comport with your desired naming should be telling you something. Robert Ullmann 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a basic misrepresentation of my position. It is immaterial to my edits on wiktionary what my preferred name for the order is. What I am doing is to clearly represent the facts of the matter.
This as opposed to EncycloPetey who is pushing not only his PoV but also a pure fantasy. Indeed, less than two minutes with a dictionary will tell you he is making stuff up, wholesale. Brya 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Coniferae and Pinales[edit]

Hi Brya, please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I'd like to delve into it to understand your claims and to verify them for myself. I have seen some fights over technical matters (georeactor specifically comes to mind) where both sides thought they were right because they didn't understand the other side. (For georeactor it turns out they were both right, but neither had heard of the other use.) Right now I'm willing to believe the Wiktionary community does not understand your viewpoint, and I couldn't care less about Wikipedia because they don't use the same criteria we do. In particular we are, or should be, interested in all attested uses of a word, historic or otherwise, regardless of what any single international body says. See planet for a pretty straightforward example. I've read some of what you'd written on Wikipedia, and if you're willing to guide me I'm quite eager to listen. Specifically I am interested in attesting all of the uses claimed, which would pretty much close the matter.

On Coniferae, which I had weakly attempted to resolve, you changed the description of "traditionally a taxon at the rank of a class" to "traditionally used for a taxon above the level of order". Who claims that the rank should be a class, who uses it for division, subclass, etc., and when is it only descriptive? You also claim that Coniferae "may be used at whatever rank this taxon is treated, provided this is above the rank of family" according to Article 16 of the ICBN. Could you link me to that text so I can add a quotation or reference to the page? In what year did that take effect, what was in use before then, and are there any alternatives still in use today?

On Pinales, which I had not tried to edit, you changed "taxonomic order" to "botanical name at the rank of order". Who uses it as an order, and who uses it only descriptively? I'm interested in expanding this claim of different taxonomic viewpoints to possibly a couple of senses if warranted. Thanks! DAVilla 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can try and address some of the points you mention. On the matter of Coniferae what I put in is very close to the official rules in the ICBN (Art 16) which mentions Coniferae explicitly in Ex 2. As to "traditionally a taxon at the rank of a class" this is in the page history. This claim is made by EncycloPetey who says he based this on my note. So, he claims no first hand knowledge on the topic: it is his personal interpretation of my note.
As to what year this came into the ICBN this is not that easy to answer. It is reasonable to say that it came into the ICBN bit by bit in 1952, 1961, 1983 and 2000 (the phrase "descriptive name" came in 1983) but effectively it has been in the Code since 1906 (that is from the first).
As to Pinales I would not know what a "taxonomic order" is except a most curious linguistic aberration. Even if Pinales are to be regarded as an order (taxonomic or not) then this is not a helpful representation, as orders are not fixed. An order will likely vary with each taxonomist who treats the order: it is not a fixed entity. A botanical name is fixed: it is published one and is there forever, no matter what taxonomic point of view is adopted. Brya 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're familiar with the RFV process, and if you want to make contributions that will not ever be subject to edit wars, then besides adding such references to the appropriate pages (ours are stylistically different from Wikipedia, but they can still be full references), you can perhaps more importantly contribute by adding citations which are instances of use rather than just definitions. For instance, if it's claimed that Coniferae is only an order, but you can find quotations of the vein "...the Coniferae, in class Coniferales, ..." then you will have proved your point. (Sorry, that example is probably really bad, but you can improve on it.) Wiktionary is not interested in one standard, we're interested in all uses of a word, even if they are technically incorrect (!), as long as they're citable. Given the bias of the Wikipedia crowd, the problem is that you have insisted on your position rather than trying to demonstrate it beyond any doubt. You will not be trusted to make edits, even if you are correct, if no one knows that you are. And you cannot expect the admins to all be botonists. This is very unfortunate, I know, but that's the only path that will lead to changes having any permanency. DAVilla 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds nice, but unfortunately that is not how it works. On Wikipedia I pretty consistently backed up everything by authoritative links, so my material is word for word among the best verified content in Wikipedia. The problem is that the "plant community" does not care about either facts or verification. "We go for what looks best, regardless of accuracy" is the common attitude, with "if we went by the facts you would be right, but we go by our gut feeling, so you are wrong" a minority position.
Also, I am wary of adding references, as the "Wikipedia plant community" regards references as a means of dressing up entries. The members, as a matter of course, list "supporting references" which do not support what they are purported to support, and may well contradict it.
It is a lose-lose proposition: Homo vult decipi. Brya 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak to Wikipedia, or much to references either actually, but quotations per WT:RFV have quieted scores of earlier disputes, even those by the more aggressive contributors, and left hundreds of others more recently to routine process. If references are window dressing on pedia, understand that quotations have the opposite affect here, acting as the final word.
Well almost, anyways, as there are still sometimes misunderstandings of use versus mention and such. (Unlike Wikipedia, we require use, whereas references like the above, while authoritative and all that, would typically fall under mention. Although compelling in making an argument, they would not count toward verification as that process has been specifically set up.) Apart from other issues like context labels, once you understand the difference, it's pretty straight-forward to cite terms.
What I'm trying to say is that, at the same time that I would ask some of the other admins to give you a second chance, I'm asking the same thing of you: give the process a second chance. If you try to circumvent it, it will be impossible for anyone to defend your actions. DAVilla 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, lets try and be clear:
  • I am perfectly willing to leave Wikipedia aside: I did not bring it up. EncycloPetey dragged it in as a justification for his block.
  • I basically agree with what you write on usage. A dictionary in its complete form should try and document different forms of usage, even if incorrect (although not ad absurdum). And obviously in establishing usage, a dictionary should "verify" when and where such usage occurs. Ciotations can be quite helpful, if these are reported faithfully.
  • However, at this stage (at least in the areas where I am engaged) it is far too early to start dealing with usage. I am concerned with having the basic definitions correct, as opposed to having complete flights of fancy of users who enter what they would like a word to mean (or who are just making a blind guess). You will note that as I originally contributed Coniferae (here), the entry did not include usage. I am quite willing to forego usage here: it is pretty much irrelevant.
  • What most of the words I am dealing with do have are formal definitions, heavily codified, laid down in books of law. To draw a parallel, one cannot take a word like felony or a phrase like "US constitution" and start make up definitions.
  • I am very dubious about the usefulness of having entries on taxonomic names that have not entered general language (there are one or two million names of plants and multiple times that for animals). An entry like Asparagales (as it is now) restricts itself to a very limited usage (only true on the German Wikipedia?, which of course is not part of the English language) or is just bogus. An entry like that is quite misleading, as it does not give the basic definition (which is always true) and excludes the more general usage. Brya 06:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As with your statements on Wikipedia, you are missing the point entirely. Saying that Coniferae "is a botanical name" is not a definition of that word, it is a description of its function (roughly its part of speech). While Wiktionary does carry that information, the definition is not the place to put it. Saying (effectively) that "the meaning will vary" is also a pointless addition to any definition.
The first time you were blocked here it was for repeated removal of information, replacing it with your POV. I can recall you lawyering with references on your talk page, but have never seen you add a reference of citation to back up your quirky POV. Frankly, the majority of your edits I have ever seen lack references. The last time you were blocked here, it was for deliberately refusing to follow community format and ranting about reversion to standard format. If you choose to vandalize (for that is what you do) and rant while insulting and demeaning other users as you have done, you will soon be blocked permanently. Such behavior is grossly unwelcome on a wiki. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Standard format[edit]

Please refer to Entry layout explained before making any more "corrections". Synonyms and See also are not the same thing here. Please follow format guidelines or you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I should hope that "Synonyms" and ""See also" are not the same thing here. In Synonyms it states "This is a list of words that have similar meanings as the word being defined. They are often very inexact."
In this case these are not words that have similar meanings, but words that have different sematic relations, as explained in Further semantic relations. Brya 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet you converted the Synonyms sections on several pages to See also sections. Your claim to understanding is not evident in either your edits or behavior. You are already persona non grata on Wikipedia for unethical behavior and are bringing your bile here. Please don't come back unless you can make a positive contribution and learn to cooperate within a community. You have been blocked, in accordance with the warning you were given above. Further outbursts and rants upion your return will lead to a permanent block of your account. --EncycloPetey 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

template:en-noun and regular possessive forms of modern English nouns[edit]

There is currently an active vote at [[1]] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

For the record: it is correct that I have been blocked for an indefinite period by the "plant community" at wikipedia, but this does need a little extra explanation. Firstly, the so-called "plant community" at wikipedia only manifests itself when there is a need to violate basic wikipedia policies and guidelines ("Wikipedia policy prescribes A, but we are the plant community, we don't care: we do B"). Secondly, I was not blocked for "unethical behaviour" but for adding fact where it was not wanted (that is: anyplace on wikipedia that is owned by the plant community).

As good an example as any is this. This is as straightforward an edit as can be, as it conform exactly to the relevant provision (Art 16.1 here: "... formed by replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family ... by the termination denoting their rank ..."). As uncontroversial as "1 + 1 = 2". Nevertheless, as the record shows EncycloPetey went ballistic and in denial. Only here (eighteen months later) he relented and corrected himself, alhough retaining a idiosyncratic way to present this (to put it mildly).

The example is untypical in that mostly I did not edit in existing articles (so as not to disturb their touchy owners), but mostly started new pages. But even the existence of some facts in wikipedia proved highly disturbing to the plant community. After all, one should never let actual facts get in the way of telling a good story.

P.S. And no, there is no point in suggesting that this phenomenon is related to me. This disregard for fact was in place in Wikipedia a long time before I came onto the scene, and continues in full force since I was blocked. It is not limited to me but affects anybody who cares about facts or encyclopedias. Brya 07:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)