User talk:CodeCat

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
To be Able to200:34, 14 February 2016
Request for confirmation of etymology022:53, 13 February 2016
Dardic203:34, 12 February 2016
Suecophile412:53, 9 February 2016
Mod:Template:also parameters007:58, 9 February 2016
Slavic dupa007:22, 9 February 2016
vale and valet008:01, 8 February 2016
Deleted category102:49, 8 February 2016
PIE conjugation016:28, 7 February 2016
Middle, 6 February 2016
Papaja002:41, 5 February 2016
lagaña (Spanish)016:48, 4 February 2016
canu'v alook?000:24, 4 February 2016
Suecophile217:12, 3 February 2016
Wondering111:42, 30 January 2016
Pluta122:15, 29 January 2016
pl,mov2Bomenaar019:42, 28 January 2016
*klinganą114:48, 27 January 2016
only running MewBot 7 or 8 hours a day?115:22, 25 January 2016
Slava, Slavonic, Slovo, Słuch200:18, 25 January 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

To be Able to

It should beː "I might be able to help you with it" if you are shooting for grammatically correct English, not what it is right now. I mean, just do a little google search on the be able to construction to see how it is used grammatically.

Mountebank1 (talk)00:06, 14 February 2016

That doesn't make it ok to edit other people's pages.

CodeCat00:22, 14 February 2016

Well, I didn't know that, okay... sorry if I transgressed some bounds there. I hope this makes it all ok, though...

Mountebank1 (talk)00:34, 14 February 2016

Request for confirmation of etymology

The template I used in the edit you reverted is now gone, so I have no reason to revert back. Nonetheless it should be possible to request a source confirming a claim about etymology. I now see that Wiktionary policy is rather poor in this respect, since there is no fast and non-time-consuming way to request such sourcing - the only option is initiating a prolonged discussion in some section called the Etymology Scriptorium, which I have no intention of doing. In any case, the decent thing to do would have been to explain this in your edit summary, whereas simply reverting twice without comment is pure dickishness, in which you definitely seem to excel., 13 February 2016

Shouldn't the family code for Dardic be inc-dar, not iir-dar?

JohnC502:23, 12 February 2016

Did I put it in wrong? Sorry if that's the case.

CodeCat02:40, 12 February 2016

Fixed! :)

JohnC503:34, 12 February 2016


The article was moved in spite probably it should not have been moved and that was made before the template was put there. The first letter as a capital letter is in line with other words like this, see Francophile and Fennophile for instance. Don't move my question to you to my talk page. Stop warring about this and discuss it instead. Lilac pig (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilac pig (talk)17:01, 3 February 2016

I checked BGC for similar words and found that Francophile gets more than 90,000 hits, Russophile about 30,000 hits, Italophile and Hispanophile 5,000 each, Fennophile 250, but Suecophile only gets one. Instead, Swedophile gets about 50 hits.

Hekaheka (talk)17:27, 3 February 2016

Please don't answer on my talk page. Put the answers at the talkpage where the thread was started, and I will answer you there. Lilac pig (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilac pig (talk)17:32, 3 February 2016

Lilac pig: I don't understand what you mean with "talkpage where the thread was started". From my point of view I'm writing on CodeCat's Talk page and an entry signed by you is right on top of the thread. I agree with you that it seems like a strange solution to delete Suecophile and keep suecophile, as the only BGC hit is for the capitalized form. Funny enough, we have Suecophiles unchallenged. One might also argue that neither of them is attestable (3 permanently archived citations are required), whereas Swedophile is.

Hekaheka (talk)18:06, 3 February 2016

I saw your message because it says "New messages (3)" on top of the Wiktionary page for me (right next to "Contributions") and the headline on this page where I write now is "Special page: New messages". Lilac pig (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilac pig (talk)12:53, 9 February 2016

I know that there is no need to update a functioning module, but it seems like (the poorly named) Mod:Template:also could be much shortened and improved using your parameters module. Thoughts?

JohnC507:58, 9 February 2016

Thank you for finally giving reasons for one of your reverts, o CodeCat!

Still, your revert goes against the etymology of dupa/dziupla/dno (q.v.) as given in Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Wiesław Boryś, Kraków 2005, see here for this very entry or in the truncated Słownik Języka Polskiego here. In short, e.g. dno <- *dъbno -< *dhub-no- od *dheṷ-b- (/*dheṷ-p-). Ditto in (agreed, very dated) Bruckner, who is providing the cognate Lithuanian [[dauba], dubus, and dubti, while for the latter originating from *dheṷ-b-, see Bronius Piesarskas and Bronius Svecevicius: Lithuanian Dictionary and Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963).

Do your sources claim otherwise? If so, please provide their ety. If not, please revert yourself and fix further. Chwała!

Zezen (talk)07:22, 9 February 2016

vale and valet[edit]

As it seems like you didn't understand the comment "PoS of an English translation does not determine Latin PoS":
The part of speech of an English translation does not determine the part of speech of a foreign word, in this case of a Latin word. Maybe this is an more obvious example for you: German "Sei gegrüßt!" literally means "Be greeted!". You can translate it with an English interjection like "Hello!", but the German still is an verbal expression (using a helping verb and a participle). Similary Latin "vale" and "valete" are just verb forms (more precisely, imperative forms) and no interjections even though they are commonly translated into English by an interjection. This also explains why the "interjection" has a singular and a plural form. Furthermore, even common dictionaries do not state that "vale" and "valete" are interjections, but simply mention that some verb forms (vale, valete, valeas) are translated as "farewell". - 08:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

08:01, 8 February 2016

Deleted category

When you deleted Category:Form of templates, you left several redlinks. Can you please fix this?

dcljr (talk)10:33, 21 August 2013

I've fixed 16 template-documentation pages and a handful of talk pages that linked to the old category name. In the future, please fix any redlinks you create.

dcljr (talk)02:49, 8 February 2016

PIE conjugation

Hello, I was just wondering why all the PIE conjugation tables were removed (at least in some articles, by you) in 2012. Assuming this was some collective decision of the Wiktionary community or some subset of it, it would be nice if the edit summaries of such mass actions included some link to said decision., 7 February 2016


tisike ‎(“a phthisic [i.e., one suffering from consumption or pulmonary tuberculosis”), Middle Dutch (since WT:RE:dum doesn't exist, I brought the request here); from the Latin phthisicus; blue-linked because of a Middle English entry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC), 6 February 2016

Since the entry for the word papaja got created, feel free to add a Dutch language entry to it. (I expanded the Danish entry, partly because it needed love and partly because I'm part Danish on my father's side.)

Lo Ximiendo (talk)02:41, 5 February 2016

lagaña (Spanish)

lagaña was called informal. i checkt the RAE n dat is wrong. I try to fix but i dont know if it workt., 4 February 2016

canu'v alook?

   (Brabant, Limburg)
   This page lacks a documentation subpage. Please create it.
   Useful links: subpage list • transclusions • redirects

along, alongside (stationary)
       Het bed staat langs de muur. 00:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC), 4 February 2016


Why are you changing the article about Suecophile and taking away what should be there? This is not a place for edit warring. Lilac pig (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilac pig (talk)16:55, 3 February 2016

The page should not be moved while it's in RFV, and the RFV notice should not be removed.

CodeCat16:57, 3 February 2016

I put the RFV template back. No roll the page back and start discussing instead of just doing your own thing. Lilac pig (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilac pig (talk)17:12, 3 February 2016

Esteemed Codecat,

Re this and other reverts.

I very rarely use the ad hominem, but recently I read the eye-opening tutorial to a- and neuro-typical aspects of Wiki editing. I shall thus risk and with a doze of trepidation ask: are you an Aspie?

If so, please (re-?)read the aforementioned guide and compare your "all or none" edits and the declared approach with e.g. the fixes made by your equally zealous Wiktionary colleagues (click), who instead of reverting such en masse, maybe grumble some, in jest and fix the codes or placement if that makes sense for the [5 pillars]' sake. I do the same to their edits, see my history herein.

Self ad-hominem now and taking a plunge at levity: listen, I am a cat], too, maybe too WP:Bold as a neurotypical :).

Shall we thus cooperate, for Wiktionary's sake?

Your eternal servitor, a slavic kludge, apt only at cludgeling with Slavic cudgels Zezen (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Zezen (talk)23:12, 29 January 2016

Probably shouldn't insert myself into this but I agree with Zezen here, reverting someone's in-good-faith work, particularly a non-IP user, is something I would generally avoid doing because it comes across as kind of hostile. I suggest either fixing it and grumbling on the person's talk page, or just pointing out the problems on the person's talk page and asking them if they could fix it. I would wait to start reverting until it's clear someone isn't willing to learn from their mistakes.

Benwing2 (talk)11:42, 30 January 2016

And why? Dlaczego Ci się pluta polska nie podoba? Zezen (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Zezen (talk)22:12, 29 January 2016

The entry was formatted all wrong. Parts of it were missing, it was placed in the wrong categories, and the pronunciation was bad too. Placing pages in the wrong categories is a bad habit that you seem to have, and I'll continue to revert you until you catch on.

CodeCat22:15, 29 January 2016

Hi CodeCat!

Could you have a short look if I did nothing wrong in my recent edit? Thank you and greetings

Bigbossfarin (talk)12:25, 27 January 2016

It looks ok.

CodeCat14:48, 27 January 2016

only running MewBot 7 or 8 hours a day?

Hey, I notice MewBot isn't running 24 hours a day to deal with term/context/cx. Are you only running it when you're around to stop it if it messes up, or is this intended to reduce load of some sort?

Benwing2 (talk)04:02, 25 January 2016

I turn the computer off when I'm not using it, like when I sleep.

CodeCat15:22, 25 January 2016

Slava, Slavonic, Slovo, Słuch

Please tell me where this should go then. It is important, as I have just edited Slavs in the WIkipedia mainspace accordingly and plan to do the same with its derivates therein. Zezen (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Zezen (talk)23:57, 24 January 2016
  • *slovo is a descendant of *ḱlew-os ~ *ḱlew-es-.
  • *slava reflects a long vowel of unclear origin, so that would go under "unsorted formations".
  • Slavonic is a non-Slavic word derived ultimately from *slava. It shouldn't go on the PIE page.
  • *sluxъ reflects an s-extension of some sort, something like *ḱlow-s-os perhaps.
CodeCat00:03, 25 January 2016

Thank you a lot. You are welcome to place these in the appropriate places, of course.

I will use this distinction if challenged in Wikipedia itself.

Zezen (talk)00:18, 25 January 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page