User talk:Cirt/Archive 1

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 one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page.

Did you know that Wiktionary can be adapted to fit your style? Go have a look at your personal preference page (nicknamed “PREFS”)! In particular, you can choose the option to show hidden categories, which will be of great help if you are looking for work to do.

Again, welcome! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Related terms[edit]

Please note that "Related terms" has a very specific meaning as a Wiktionary header. It is applied only to etymologically related terms, not to related ideas. See this edit for an example of how this is handled. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you very much for the correction! Cirt (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to self - categories[edit]

Cirt (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Done. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


You should know that:

  1. The Portuguese categories you have edited are "form of" catgeories, and so a category like Category:Portuguese plural nouns should be included in Category:Portuguese nouns, not in the main language category. Likewise, most categories with an ISO prefix should be in the corresponding *Topics category, and there is a template to do this. you might want to learn a little more about how categories are organized before putting in all that work.
  2. Some of the verb-forms categories are being discussed for deletion, so categorizing them now may not be worthwhile.

--EncycloPetey 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thank you very much for this note, I will change that above category. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Question: botting? if so, please request bot flag. And <wave!> - Amgine/talk 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't use bots. And thanks! Cirt (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to self - pages[edit]

Cirt (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to self - categories[edit]

Done for now. Cirt (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Use vs. mention[edit]

Hi Cirt,

Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning. Quotations in entries should be uses, not mentions. I've moved your references from brain-washing to Talk:brain-washing, but feel free to add a ===References=== section that uses some of them. (Of course, the formatting of a reference is a bit different from that of a quotation. For one thing, we don't usually copy passages from references into our entries, though see pimp slap for example of how that can be done if you want to.)

Sorry, and thanks,
RuakhTALK 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, thanks for the helpful pointers! Cirt (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent batch of changes is perfect, thank you! —RuakhTALK 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks again for the help, Cirt (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


These are not needed, nor hugely useful for definitions, please use Quotations instead (or Citations if you need more space). References are more used for etymologies and usage notes. Conrad.Irwin 18:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this pointer, I will keep it in mind for the future. But a quick question, could you give me some good examples of when References are encouraged to be used? Cirt (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever added one, but they are commonly used with Etymologies, particularly those the validity of which cannot be easily confirmed. Unlike Wikipedia, we are a primary source (for definitions anyway), and so references (which link to secondary sources for use in a tertiary source) are not really useful. I tried to write why being a primary source is necessary at Wiktionary:Descriptivism, but that page isn't great; it's a fairly standard feeling here though. Conrad.Irwin 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, understandable, and yet ... so it is okay to have pages exist with no sources listed whatsoever to back up what is on the page - and this could conceivably be considered an optimum state for such an entry? Cirt (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
See hinder that was in 2008 considered to be "our best entry", not a reference in sight, no. Quotations and Citations are essential Citations:hinder is also worth seeing. Conrad.Irwin 19:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
So - the community consensus determines what is or is not a factually accurate definition? Cirt (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much, definitions should be backed up by citations, which is why we have WT:RFV. Given that most people here are native speakers of English, they are sufficient authority that we trust what they put, besides this means we are able to include words here that are not defined by many1, or even in any2 other place. I suppose a case could be made, for technical terms in specific fields to have references from a dictionary or source in that field, but I don't think it's been discussed. It's also quite interesting how many published and respected sources get very confused about what words actually mean3, or invent etymologies that are clearly bogus4. Wiktionary is (supposed to be) a descriptive dictionary, so we define words in the manner they are used, and not exclusively in the manner "authority X" would like them to be used - doing so is clearly a more neutral thing to do (and we can also document which "authority X" says what too).Conrad.Irwin 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, I mostly agree with you, and your points are indeed valid, however Ruakh (talkcontribs) above seemd to think I was doing okay so far [1], and as some of the terms I have worked on improving are indeed esoteric - or actually downright a bit controversial, I think it is a good idea to at the very least have a couple references cited. But I will do my best to take the advice from the two of you to heart, and weight more heavily usage of the Quote cite style over and above References. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I led you astray. Quotations are usually better than references, but references are definitely good, too, in many cases. —RuakhTALK 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks, no worries. ;) Cirt (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


These seem to be valid citations. What the intention of the user was is not the question, the question is do they convey meaning? It seems they do. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: has created massive sockfarm, see: w:User:TRATTOOO, and q:User:TRATTOOO. Singular purpose across Wikiquote and Wikipedia seems to be spam promotional edits. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we'd all appreciate evaluating edits on their content, not who created them. Nadando 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
We surely can find better content from more noteworthy individuals, where the content does not serve to promote the individual through spam across multiple Wikimedia sites. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Compare [2] with [3].​—msh210 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd, was his userpage red all that time? -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No: [4]. Perhaps your script should add the welcome message to a more carefully selected set of talkpages (excluding, e.g., those that have been archived in that manner and those belonging to whitelisted people or admins).​—msh210 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I do it manually. The user page did indeed appear as a redlink to me. Perhaps it was a temporary glitch of the website. Oh well, -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to self[edit]

Useful links and things at User:EncycloPetey. ;) Cirt (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: Appendix page idea[edit]

Ideas and links
Organization, different ideas for methods
  • Straight alphabetical
  • Chronological, by year
  • Subject matter, by topic and category

-- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly Yes check.svg Done, potential for other related appendix pages. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Another one Yes check.svg Done, created = Appendix:American Dialect Society most outrageous words of the year. -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations of inflected forms[edit]

Hi Cirt. I noticed you moved a citation from assholocracy to the plural. No problem, but please note that we often do include such "inflected" citations under the lemma form, because that page shows the inflections anyhow. Personally I have only put citations on a plural page when the plural seemed particularly unlikely or liable to be challenged. Equinox 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but in this particular case, I did that because: 1) The same source is now used on the singular page, for the singular usage. 2) The singular usage has an RFV tag, and I thought it couldn't hurt to have a cite at the plural page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names[edit]

I've removed your vote, because you may not agree with the final version of the proposal. You'll probably want to wait 'til the vote starts before voting. If I erred, and you support the proposal no matter what it winds up saying, then by all means put your vote back, and I apologize.​—msh210 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

no worries, and replied at user's talk page. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Word of the day = slash fiction[edit]

-- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Re diff, it's active now.​—msh210 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I commented in Support at a proposal[edit]

Audio files[edit]

Hi, Thank you that you posted a welcome message on my talk page, and as you wrote, if I have any questions I can ask on Wiktionary:Information desk or on your talk page. So I ask on your talk page...hope you are able to help me. I am a Czech native speaker (so I contribute mainly on the Czech Wiktionary but here too) and I want to upload some audio files so other users know how to pronounce a Czech word). I already asked on Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Uploading_files. They tried expain it to me but I didn't understand them, as I am an IT lamer. So I hope you are able to explain it me better. They told me about Audacity so I downloaded it. I recorded a file and then tried to export it as they wrote-but it is impossible. If I go to File and Export, where I should write the -ogg. format? Thanks, --Istafe (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on template creations[edit]

I'm trying to get Template:Sockpuppet and associated templates to work here on Wiktionary, but not having an easy go of it at the moment. :( -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi. This comes up from time to time (most recently Wiktionary:BP#Citations_from_online_sources)... basically, the Internet Archive doesn't make websites durably archived, because (1) it's just one organization, and could shut down, and (2) people can request that content backed up on the archive be removed. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:-sche. But also, the discussion at Wiktionary:BP#Citations_from_online_sources looks far from resolved at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Re WT:RFV#wall humping: have no worries about time and patience despite the angel of RFV-death on my userpage, haha; by the letter of the law, everyone has a month to cite it, but as you can tell from the fact that we have entries from September 2011 still on the page, plausible things tend to be left for even longer. Sorry my comments above and on RFV were so curt, but re the BP discussion looking far from resolved: that discussion is ongoing, but the issue has been discussed numerous times, and tends to be viewed as resolved, hence DCDuring's and my comments on RFV about "sources we accept" and "valid" sources. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Re WT:RFV#wall humping: I do have worries about time and patience. It appears there's way way way too hasty activity going on here, whilst I have stated repeatedly I am still in the process of ongoing research. It seems my repeated comments stating so have been ignored. It's a bit frustrating when I'm making a good faith effort to learn, absorb education from other users here, and contribute research. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
True, Wiktionary does have the sometimes-good but also often-bad tendency to prize keeping articles tidy over retaining and working with and teaching new editors. Stick with it, though: you're already getting the hang of a lot of things; you've even mastered the {{quote-web}}, {{quote-news}} etc templates, which many people don't. If you look in the block log, I was blocked (for 15 minutes) early in my time here for making misguided edits I thought were helpful: I was mass-adding a category everyone had, unbeknownst to me, just voted to stop using. You're doing good work citing things at WT:RFV, and yes, other editors and I unhelpfully removed some of your citations as inadmissible without explaining why they were inadmissible... but it's good you're reminding us to do better jobs of explaining things. :P You can ask me if you have questions about policies and things. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, perchance I'll take you up on that! :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

assholocracy and wall humping[edit]

I've requested that fresh sets of eyes look at both entries (as well as arseholeocracy and assholeocracy) and determine which have citations that meet our standards, and close the RFVs accordingly. Note that even if the entries are deemed to fail RFV at the moment and are deleted, the search for citations can continue; that's why we have dedicated Citations: pages; the entries can be restored if sufficient citations are later found. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

wall humping resolved[edit]

Resolved, per diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Improved page, Streisand effect[edit]

I've improved the page, Streisand effect, diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Successfully scheduled for Word of the Day, see Wiktionary:Word_of_the_day/Archive/2012/November#13. :) -- Cirt (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

welcome js script[edit]

It seemed to work for me when I tested your changes [5]. Perhaps some sort of caching issue? Bawolff (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome js[edit]

Seems to work fine for me. Does your browser have any js errors? Bawolff (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


I'm a little confused by your citations at fuckingmachine and fuckingmachines - it looks to me like they're all either split up as two words (fucking machine) or references to the URL How do they support the spelling fuckingmachine as one word? Mr. Granger (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Mr. Granger, I've already added more citations than that, to the Citations page. Also, I plan to add even more citations, quite shortly. Please be patient, as the entry has only recently even been created, thank you! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It's been over a week and there are still no citations supporting the spelling "fuckingmachine" - do you have any reason to believe this spelling exists? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Granger, thanks for your reply. As for your concern about the time delay, please understand that I've been out of town with limited Internet access and a spotty online connection at best. I hope you will please, be patient, as I conduct further research to provide you with citations to your satisfaction. Thank you for your patience, -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and added two (2) additional citations from Usenet that are satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)