User talk:Connel MacKenzie

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

I don't archive my page to make it easier for you to post questions here. I archive my page when I get too many requests(/complaints) for me to do so. The majority of conversations on this page (and in my archives) belong on WT:VIP, WT:BP, WT:ID, WT:GP, WT:TR, WT:RFD, WT:RFC or WT:RFV. Please consider redirecting your question, from me personally, to the general discussion pages (even if you think I'm the only one likely to reply there.)

talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive&hideredirects=1&stripprefix=0 Pages starting with “User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive”.
Older page history: history, 2006, 2007, 2008
Vandalism archive: /vandalism
Edit index

I have transcluded the following from the new users log: ‎

  1. 22:00, 1 January 2008 EizneKcaM lennoC (Talk | contribs) created account for User:HsibolG (Talk | contribs)
  2. 22:00, 1 January 2008 EizneKcaM lennoC (Talk | contribs) created account for User:OttolB repmeS (Talk | contribs)
  3. 21:59, 1 January 2008 EizneKcaM lennoC (Talk | contribs) created account for User:NnamlluD treboR (Talk | contribs)
  4. 21:59, 1 January 2008 EizneKcaM lennoC (Talk | contribs) New user

EizneKcaM lennoC is attempting to impersonate you, NnamlluD treboR is attempting to impersonate Robert Ullmann, and I think you can figure out the rest by turning them the right way. (The impersonators' user names are backwards.) --MacReporter 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH. I imagine I am partly to blame, for User talk:Image egamI.  :-(   Thanks for the heads-up. --Connel MacKenzie 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing WT:PMT at the bottom of WT:CP[edit]

As per your suggestion on Beer parlour, I would surely add the Project Multilingual Translations to the listing of WT:CP. Thanks for your consideration and suggestions for newly proposed mega-project.

Project Multilingual Translations is only in the stage of being framed; but is a big goal to be achieved. So, firstly we would give enough time to frame all things correctly for everything expected to function in right manner and then only set out with work. kindly do give additional suggestions at Project Multilingual Translations discussions page.

Also, kindly convey some deserving names for PMT group membership from various languages.

Shreehari 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with any wiki-project, the volunteers for PMT must volunteer themselves. It would not be an act of kindness to suggest names of specific individuals, who very probably are already over-committed themselves! On the group membership page, you may have inadvertently chosen the wording "control language" when you really mean "language proficiency?" That subtle difference isn't so subtle in that context. --Connel MacKenzie 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

work to be done[edit]

Hi. If you like, I'll go through these tomorrow. User:Newnoise/Stuff Probably delete a much higher %age than he (WF?) states. - Algrif 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm busy now, too. Maybe strikeout the ones kept that have been completely rewritten. --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you look at his recent edits and advise him, please? I'm not sure what would be the best way to phrase it, and I have to sign off now anyway. Thanks. - Algrif 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing - punt. That is, punt and hope that someone other than myself, could handle it more gracefully. We have a long standing prohibition on "word histories" (particularly in etymology sections) that covers the style of the approach. But there are two problems: 1) what s/he is entering clearly isn't a copyvio, 2) what s/he is entering does belong in those entries as ===Usage notes=== (reworded, chopped WAY down.)
I dunno. Suggest floating ideas on "Talk:" pages first, to ask what sections they belong in and/or help rewording? Diplomacy really isn't my strong suit. --Connel MacKenzie 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reordering definitions[edit]

So what is the etymological objection to reordering the two definitions for husbandry? The conservation-of-resources one seems to be broader and encompasses the other one. Fair enough that m-w and aren't enough justification for wiktionary, but what in the world is "etymological order" and how do you determine that those two definitions are in it now? Eaefremov 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figurative extension of the original literal meaning encompasses the original? I disagree. But your assertion that Wiktionary should be made to comply with (in the edit summary) is suggestive of a larger conceptual error. While Wikipedia is only a tertiary source, Wiktionary cannot be and is not. --Connel MacKenzie 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent cheatbot error[edit]

As recently as Dec 07 Cheatbot declared a past form to be a present participle. (arced was the one.) I have so far found three instances of this error. I hope we can come up with ways of standardizing more of our entries so that it easier to get bots to behave. DCDuring 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a very strange bug. Thank you for pointing it out. And timely, too, since I was preparing to upload the batch from 1/2/2008. I'll add another check to ensure that particular problem doesn't resurface, then regenerate the upload. --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a few of the errors. Another aspect is that 3rd p singular entries were missed, a pres. participles were labelled as 3rd p singulars. I'm really glad it was timely. I caught about 8 errors through the middle of the b's so fewer than 100 in total probably for English. DCDuring 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the logs at the bottom of the userpage User:TheCheatBot are helpful, in finding them. I am inclined to think this is a relatively recent bug, as the inflection template has changed so very much, over the years. --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be connected with cases where en-verb with four explicit verb inflections. DCDuring 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe just the number of separator bars. verge has no entry after last sep bar and had the problem. DCDuring 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - tracking a problem down is typically the hard part. Hopefully I'll remember to correct this and regenerate, before uploading any of these. (This is on the longer list of things I want to rewrite for a different platform, to get more up-to-date checks in place, but I guess that is neither here nor there. Traversing the entire XML dump is still the first pass, either way.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New dump today.
  • I finished coding the bugfix, but haven't unit-tested it yet. Keep an eye out tomorrow for new links at the bottom of User:TheCheatBot.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 08:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is was going through to check that there were no references to the shortcuts, as oppposed to to the pages they linked. But it really wasn't worth it. Thanks a lot. Conrad.Irwin 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cast not a clout[edit]

Hi. Some advice please. Having seen your modifications to this proverb; am I to understand that we no longer use/need the "context" tag? - Algrif 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still sometimes used for very rare context tags that don't have their own "wrappers" yet. When I find such templates, I try to clean them up (so they match, e.g. {{slang}}) and update the AutoFormat tables about them. "Context" itself is getting phased out gradually. There were a few discussions about it on WT:GP in 2007... --Connel MacKenzie 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you're here though...should I have sent that to RFV? Where is that phrase from? [1] gives no clues. --Connel MacKenzie 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proverb entry might need to be modified. [2] My mum always used it as per my entry. But the saying is quite old, so perhaps it should be "ne'er". - Algrif 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Later edit) This [3] seems to seal it for "ne'er cast a clout.." although alternatives do show up (including my entry) they are definitely in the minority. - Algrif 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weird that says it is used (only?) in British English. Well, I've never heard it here, so a {{UK}} tag seems reasonable, based on their say-so. Moving it to "Ne'er ..." seems reasonable. --Connel MacKenzie 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese demonstratives[edit]

Hey, I don't remember whether you knew Japanese or not; but I finally made a table of the Japanese demonstratives (just check out the page kono or sono). However, demonstratives aren't accepted as headers; how should I categorise it then? --BiT 08:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my efforts to investigate this have proved fruitless. Perhaps User:EncycloPetey could give better guidance? WT:AJ does not yet mention them; its talk page is another good place to ask. --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm too bad, thanks for the effort though. :) Why can't they just be categorized as "demonstratives" though? That's what they bloody are! --BiT 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I misread your question! Yes, Category:Japanese demonstratives is fine - I thought you were asking about the heading. --Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea both actually, why can't you make the header be "demonstrative" (like this ===Demonstrative===)? --BiT 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket "2008011210003289"[edit]

Ticket created for verification purposes, between the emails and this, hopefully we're set. :)

btw, ever considered archiving your talkpage? o.o It's long! ~Kylu (u|t) 09:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Never. No! I mean it! NO! --Connel MacKenzie 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no snarky comments about irc:// either! No! NO! --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you founder of Wiktionary?[edit]

Thank you for such an interesting project. - 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. No, I was not aware of "wikis" at all, when this started. User:Brion VIBBER created this wiki. User:Eclecticology was here on day one, with a few others. I am a contributor here, just like you. --Connel MacKenzie 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, i just noticed that while you do the Unicodifying and removing the HTML entities, it seems to overlook Ö for Ö. You edited f.e. Ofen and replaced the ß for ß but the Ö stayed (which i have now removed manually). Maybe you can add that to your script. Greets, Mutante 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I hope I never do this again! I think I got the Ouml's manually during the first pass, but I'll re-add it now just in case. --Connel MacKenzie 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I made sure these are all case-sensitive - since they are - perhaps that was how it slipped through? AWB bug? Argh.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you go Visviva's talk page and let this guy know that spetchel passed the criteria for verification since it falls under "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" for permanently recorded media with Google Books. --Marmoset Marmalade 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that these links do show noun use. Visviva's action was correct, in that the citations themselves never were added to the entry...closing out backlogged RFVs is a painful task that I'm not about to second-guess here.
I think the best way to proceed is to create Citations:spetchel with at least three book citations, then request un-deletion from Visviva, based on the "new" citations given.
--Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But do they show "use"? They look like "mention" to me (i.e. in dictionaries, not in ordinary text). SemperBlotto 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further down look like possibilities, so I'm not about to say this can never be entered - I'll only say that Visviva's action looks correct. --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I didn't realize I had to add citations to the entry. I just knew that under the List of searchable archives for the clause of usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year, Google Books pops up as a source for validation under "How does one verify a sense?". Spetchel appears in 23 separate books as a noun, so it should be suitable, correct? --Marmoset Marmalade 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are needed to prove that it actually is a word - we can't/don't use secondary sources directly for a number of reasons, so we look for the term being used. That's the problem identified to begin with, that searching b.g.c. doesn't really help with...the first entire page of results list only (unusable) secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My misunderstanding then. So I just need to find three sources where the word is used. Now I assume that wikipedia will not be an accepted source? --Marmoset Marmalade 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(A username such as "monkey cum" doesn't exactly instill confidence, however.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..............ookay. It's not "monkey cum". Great. I didn't really need to think of that. Now my username is going to be tainted by that image. Thanks a lot. --Marmoset Marmalade 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, um, but, well, ahh, erm. Do tell, what is "marmalade" in a simian context supposed to mean then? Surely I can't be blamed for that association...I'm not that creative. --Connel MacKenzie 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are two of my favorite words. Honestly I wasn't feeling very creative so I typed in the first two words that came to mind. It seemed funny to me at the time (just look at him! He's hilarious!), however, I hadn't drawn that particular conclusion. --Marmoset Marmalade 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protected titles[edit]

I'd like if we always used max 1 year when adding these. That makes it easier to see when they are added as well. Yes, there are a few that may recur, and will never be valid, but in this way we won't have an ever increasing pile of cruft. It would be good if Special:Protectedtitles remained useful to look at. (e.g. do we really care about spra/nkton, or whether it ever reappears?) Robert Ullmann 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several things:
  1. spra* No, never. It resurfaced after years, last few times it was unprotected (after a year or more.)
  2. We shouldn't be keeping pages, now that we have two other methods of preventing them. This pile of cruft should be steadily decreasing (as should WT:PT.)
  3. Generally, one year sounds good, but it shouldn't be yourself and myself that decide that.
--Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you to look at...[edit]

News, but also c/p of en.wp script

Made you look! - Amgine 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell how that is able to get invoked. Once running, it is just pulling some random web copy of the ILOVEYOU virus (looks like.) We can probably use parts of it for the thing to auto-download random(Firefox|Opera|Netscape|...) whenever a page is opened in IE. But such ridiculous silliness aside, thanks for the link/explanation. --Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again from Polyglot[edit]

Hi Connel,

I logged in once more and found I had a new message. It was from you about something that happened in September 2005. I don't even recall the specifics anymore. Anyway, I'm sure you're doing a great job and I wish you all the best for the coming years!


Wow, it seems I caused quite a fuss by trying to do some good uploading my pictures and recordings and then subsequently disappearing from the face of the earth for a while... If I ever upload anything again, I'll do it to commons directly from now on. Recently I picked up a new interest though: It's great fun to go around with a GPS and a camera and try to build a useful map of the world --Polyglot 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, you were asking a question back there, but I was so stunned to see your name, I forgot to answer! Yes, that stuff is loooooong since taken care of. Your stuff was irksome, but not nearly as bad as some of the others. openstreetmap sounds like it might be overlapping one of the similar initiatives from GoogleEarth...but if it is anything like it, it must be fun! (And somehow, a bigger time-sink than en.wiktionary!) --Connel MacKenzie 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nbarth usertalk deleted?[edit]

Hi Connel,

I noticed that my user talk page, User talk:Nbarth, was deleted: [4]. I haven't used it afaik (I just noticed a "New messages", which yielded a deleted talk page) and I presume the page had something offensive on it. Could you tell me what happened at my Wikipedia talk page? Thanks!

Nbarth 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification!
Nbarth 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry for misrepresenting you on the Grease Pit, it was unintentional. Conrad.Irwin 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Connel. I am thinking of merging Wikipedia's deprogramming and exit counseling articles to Deconversion (at Wikipedia, of course - not here! :-)

Then I'm planning - with help from Jossi, Andries and others (I wouldn't do this by myself) - to rework deprogramming and exit counseling and daughter articles of the new deconversion article.

The rationale behind this is the realization that there is no general article on people leaving their faith with the assistance of (or under pressure from) others. There is also a lot of overlap between deprogramming and exit counseling, in terms of models of manipulation (from the 'cult') and methods of talking the person out of their beliefs/membership. The main difference between the two is the degree of force used: a lot in (forcible) deprogramming, none it all in (voluntary) exit counseling.

The reason I'm involving you is that (1) you have a bot that will be triggered if I start doing this and (2) it involves meanings of words, which is a Wiktionary specialty. -- —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talkcontribs).

blind man's bluff[edit]

I think this is another UK-US difference. In UK most folks say buff. I did think how best to tackle these entries before I made them, and one of my options was a syncronised link. What do you think? -- Algrif 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how unexpected. Did I mark "buff" as a mere typo? Trying to use {{sync}} as a subst'd template might be best then. I wonder what buff means in UK English. Over here, you can buff your shoes with a cloth to finish shining them. You could also use buffed (not buff) to describe something very over-inflated (like a body-builder's muscles.) That series of entries could probably use a lot of attention. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much suspect that back in queen Vic's youth, they talked about playing blind man's bluff in UK too. I suspect it is nothing more than a corruption that is now more common than the root. Might have something to do with the way a young child would say the word? I've never used the {{sync}} template before. Would mind doing the honours? and I will receive the learning with gratitude. Ciao -- Algrif 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. On line one (before ==English==) I added {{subst:synch|blind man's buff|blink man's bluff|subst=subst:}}. Fortunately, the instructions for it are still accurate.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal numbers cats[edit]

Um, Connel these are POS categories; they are (were) all correct. Kindly put them back. Robert Ullmann 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrr. I was just going through non-empty {{catred}}s. The categories themselves are marked backwards? --Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WT:POS section is wrong (hence part of the "debated" bit); if you look at the all the other POS cats they DO NOT use the xx: code prefix, the use the language name and the part-of speech. This is left over from the attempt to force "number->numeral" on us, when clearly almost everyone preferred "number".
Look at the rest of the POS cats in WT:POS, which are full policy. Robert Ullmann 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I didn't even notice "numeral" in those. So, basically anything with {{catred}} on it that pertains to numbers is backwards. Great. Wanna help re-align the categories themselves while I run the bot for the category members? --Connel MacKenzie 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
be happy to, but it is past sleep time for me tonight ;-(
Also, you aren't using the option to leave other categories in place. (-inplace) Robert Ullmann 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix {{cardinal}} et al., when you get to them. --Connel MacKenzie 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. Why can't people get the category naming concept? It has been two years now. (I see, EP created the whole mess last year.) Robert Ullmann 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, EP made such a horrendous mess of these POS names and cats last February while trying to force everyone to use "Numeral" instead of the generally preferred "Number" that I can't deal with straightening it out right now. Robert Ullmann 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic[edit]

No joke. Just trying to make it consistent with w:Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic which redirects to here. Evrik 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: any mention of S. C. here is guaranteed to receive a hostile response. He has personally, directly been responsible for far too much vandalism here to do an about-face and suddenly start acting as promoters of his spam. The fact that it was redundant makes it silly. The fact that is was more than one sentence makes it a distinct liability. --Connel MacKenzie 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I have posted my comments on the talk page. Evrik 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was a pretty absurd allegation. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "Han tu"[edit]

Why? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Cehihin (talkcontribs).

That isn't a valid heading - but could you please be a little more specific? What exact entry? Link please. --Connel MacKenzie 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Wiktionary in turn should refer back to the Wikipedia to cover

Peter Horn 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language Codes[edit]

Where can I find some information on the language codes, like 'en', 'sp', etc.? I'd like to find out how to specify my languages correctly for the admin nomination. Thanks. RSvK 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I found them. Thanks. RSvK 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two-digit codes come from w:ISO 3166-1, (which are actually country codes.) The Wikipedia Babel templates have historically been copied whenever a language is missing. --Connel MacKenzie 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Connel, why do you keep confusing this with 3166? The two letter codes for languages are w:ISO 639-1, no relation to 3166 (and, note, predates it by quite a bit), except that a number of countries and languages with the same names happen to have the same code. We do not use ISO 3166 anywhere. Our list is Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages Robert Ullmann 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because 3166 is what has been used consistently for wiki URL names. My bad. --Connel MacKenzie 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Anything I can do to make life easier on cleaning up these old things? I hear that history merger is no fun. Did I accidentally create some history that forced that requirement on you or is it necessary anyway? I don't mind doing some info-extraction/cleanup work once in a while, but I don't want to make work for anyone or waste my time. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history merge is only "no fun" when I totally mess it up.  :-)   In theory, anytime you use the content from a transwiki, they should be history-merged. I don't think we've typically been very good about it, so far. But that is one of the main reasons the full history is coming over the wall. --Connel MacKenzie 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that mean that if all we would get is a badly formatted quote or one WL to a synonym, I may as well just look it up again and allow the transwiki to be speedied without a merger? If there is actually at least a sense line or something a little more substantive, it would seem more worth the extra steps of history merging. Alernatively, is there any template or something that could allow me to select an existing WT entry as target, append all the content of the TW, and merge all the history? I would then finish by editing out the error and duplication manual, leaving a complete trail. DCDuring TALK 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is {{merge}} that should help with that. I haven't done that side of it in a while; you might ask User:Goldenrowley what his preferred method has worked out to be. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

melt faces[edit]

is a common phrase. The most oft-cited example would be Shadow priests melt faces. 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, prove me wrong, please. Find three citations here showing that sense, spanning a year. I don't see any evidence for this as a common set phrase. I mean, c'mon - zilch? --Connel MacKenzie 07:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And don't use OPs. You can e-mail me if there is really a need. --Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why this revert? This way {{proto}} can't link to it. Roots have implicit '-' in their name, and that differs them from other POS that can be fully reconstructed for PIE (like those in Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns, not those "nominal stems" as Dbachmann used to lemmatize them) --Ivan Štambuk 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A broken template is no reason to move them to the wrong place. Add a parameter for "noun" or "root" to make it point to the right place. I really don't understand the complaint. --Connel MacKenzie 11:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected lots of those some time ago before you reverted that particular redirect of mine; but I don't understand, why didn't you also redirect the other ones in Category:Proto-Indo-European roots? The template is not "broken", root is everything that ends with "-". reconstructed PIE nouns are also often cited in '-' form, just to be clear what is the stem onto which suffixes are appended, but unlike paper dictionaries that can't afford the cost in space, it's easy to provide full declensional paradigm on wiktionary, lemmatized as nominative singular, which finally renders the '-' postfix superfluous. --Ivan Štambuk 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Connel: the page titles should not have "noun" or "root" in them. Robert Ullmann 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms is very interesting on this. Robert, you added that qualifier to no longer say "noun" or "root"? The respective vote didn't specify that. While I am certain that is a mistake, the relevant policy page, does in fact, support your position. I've made the counter-correction you've suggested, moving it back to what I understand to be the "wrong" appendix title. --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback me[edit]

Hi Connel, I screwed up something. Can you revert or rollback the edits I made today from this one?- I didn't read Category:Pages containing style information before changing a bunch of stuff. Sorry--Keene 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For future reference: you can do it yourself nearly as fast by enabling "Lupin's Popups" in WT:PREFS. --Connel MacKenzie 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll try that. Or I might just wait til I become an admin if it doesn't work--Keene 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archival edit summaries.[edit]

Hi Connel,

Your archive-bot is very useful; I firmly approve. :-)

One question: would it be possible for the edit summary to indicate somehow the title of the section that's being archived? That would be really useful in looking through the history.

Thanks in advance!

RuakhTALK 11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three significant improvements I want to make to "" - proper section editing (instead of the whole page,) edit summary customization (your request) and proper apostrophe handling in section titles. Unfortunately, all three are a lower priority than rebuilding the older cross-references from the full XML dump analysis and sorting the 27 WT:DEL subpages.
Another somewhat important feature still needed, is double checking that {{rfv has been removed from the target entry, when entries are kept. (If not, then the bot should add a reminder comment to that section...thereby delaying archiving another two weeks.)
Of greater concern, is that the various announcements on WT:GP haven't encouraged quite the help I thought it might. To strike a title is to mark it as kept. Delete the target entry to turn the link red. Sign both events so that people can comment/object/correct/whatever. (Forgetting to sign, can cause the bot to put it into the older archive - which for some of the backlog might be appropriate, if 100% non-controversial.)
Glad you too, like it. --Connel MacKenzie 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. :-) —RuakhTALK 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've broken my priority list by presenting me with something interesting. But it isn't workin' right. Yet. --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! --Connel MacKenzie 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should recognize these weaknesses of mine, better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! —RuakhTALK 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I've responded to your question about copyleft at User talk:Kop. You may wish to start with my final thoughts I just added to the bottom. --kop 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I can indeed confirm that Chris.B is my account on the English Wikipedia. I'm afraid I can't answer there as I'm on an enforced wikibreak, but you may wish to have a look at my Wikimatrix on Meta for verification. Apologies for any confusion. Regards, RedCoat 15:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling your e-mail there is still an invisible user preference, isn't it? --Connel MacKenzie 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite make out what you want me to do now. I am currently using a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" and thus can't sign in to reply or re-enable the email function. What exactly do you mean by "an invisible user preference"? Regards, RedCoat 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in your browser's options turn off javascript for five minutes, (For Firefox: Tools, Options, Content, uncheck "Enable Javascript". For IE: Tools, Internet Options, Security, Internet (zone), Custom Level, Scripting, Active Scripting: prompt or disable. For Netscape: Edit, Preferences, Advanced, Scripts & plugins, uncheck "Navigator".) then visit w:Special:Preferences and check the "Enable e-mail from other users" and click save. (I suppose just replying there would also do the trick, at that point.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I've also enabled email for the avoidance of doubt. RedCoat 16:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of[edit]

Why did you block a user for "stupidity" when ze had no contributions? (I remember some topic on a discussion room about blocking some other IP for "stupidity"). --Ionas | Fuck Censorship 05:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect to be able to see deleted entries? This block for you (now for the absurd signature) is incrementally longer than the last. --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on "ei"[edit]

Hi, you added this { {rfc|find source of copyvio, delete}} on the Finnish section of ei. Copyvio...delete? What did you mean by that? -- Frous 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not remotely possible that that technical exposition was garnered from whole cloth just from common knowledge of that term. No reference for it was given, yet it clearly was copied from somewhere. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair-trigger block[edit]

Bite much? Do admins on wiktionary even bother warning well-meaning kids when they make silly mistakes, or do you just show them the door? Disappointedly yours, Anetode 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A misspellings vandal entering bad redirects into a dictionary? You realize you're busting my chops over a one day block? I've made mistakes - but this was not one of them. I wouldn't be surprised if another sysop blocked you for this harassment. ONE DAY! No wonder 'pedia is...well, 'pedia. --Connel MacKenzie 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see deleted revisions, so if this user created a few useless redirects, then my appraisal of the situation may be mistaken. If this was the case, then I apologize, my assumption was that the block was in direct response to this edit. But to characterize my concern as harassment? Give me a break and get over yourself, I'm not an active contributor to this project and I don't care about whatever petty power games you exercise with your administrator privileges. I'm not here to get into a pissing match with you, have fun threatening anyone who dares to question you on your turf. Cheers, Anetode 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself, indeed. I'm not concerned about you attacking me, I'm concerned about you advocating misspellings in a dictionary. This dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Threat? Fuck you. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I wouldn't be surprised if another sysop blocked you for this harassment." I take it that this was not an implicit threat, but merely a reminder to keep civil - a reminder that clearly doesn't apply to you. So long and thanks for all the fish. Anetode 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to look up the word threat. Good riddance. --Connel MacKenzie 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like a schoolteacher, I'd like to call a time out. Can you both cool it for a while? Posting while tempers are hot is clearly not helping resolve this. Just a thought, -- ArielGlenn 06:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages[edit]

Just about all mainspace links to onomatopoeic have been fixed to point to onomatopoetic. Why does onomatopoeic redirect to onomatopoetic, though? bd2412 T 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you comment here? On User talk:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages.
Why are all our main namespace entries point now to the not-really-a-word archaic spelling variant? Dude, vs - is the point to confuse newcomers, or to show off the fact that we love calling misspellings "real words?"
I'll bot-correct these shortly.
--Connel MacKenzie 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that both words are considered "correct". The OED has cites for both words going back over 150 years (although onomatopoeic is preferred). Atelaes 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OED makes a point of listing obsolete and archaic words - so what? OED, SchmOED.  :-)   Most resources, like perhaps ones that actually care about their readers list that as a misspelling. That it is rare, is beyond question right? So what is the point of confusing readers by using a rare alternate? --Connel MacKenzie 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
gbc shows 900 cites for the nonexistent variant, and 1200 for the "correct" one. Both certainly deserve entries. Rfv the one if you like. To be honest, I wouldn't even give the second a "common misspelling of", rather I'd give it "alternative spelling of". But, onomatopoeic certainly deserves preference. Atelaes 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't want to RFV it - I acknowledge it is a variant. But ALL our main namespace entries that have that characteristic should link to the correct (onomatopoeic) spelling, not the rare (onomatopoetic) variant. --Connel MacKenzie 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, the "correct" (onomatopoeic) was a redirect to the (onomatopoetic). If it's wrong, fine, but it was on your list as a missing term with links to it, and I directed those links to the nearest existing entry. bd2412 T 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. Thanks for the explanation. (Always a pleasure to stumble across a almost-year-old subpage thing. Moving it here probably could have been more graceful.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I will clean up my mess. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello connel[edit]

just saying hello -- 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

math spam ??[edit]

Look at this knot#See_also. Is that random 'math spam' or something real that i dont have a clue about? Mutante 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the "square root of n" symbol when you edit this section? Edit this section and click it...when it is over three lines of stuff, it is probably intentional. (Why one wouldn't just click [cancel] or close the window, is a bit baffling.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaa, i understand now, thanks ;) Mutante 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning[edit]

I don't know if you've been told about this before, but are these unsigned comments yours? At the moment I'm too lazy to go back in the history and see whatnot, but if they are, I would like to warn you about something. Please do not be rude and just block people for "stupidity". And this:

Someone who has in the past made questionable edits here, comes along suggesting a misspelling as a valid alternate. (Note that about half their previous contributions are spam links to external sites, on their user page.)

is unacceptable. Who are you to decide what is "questionable" or not?

This should not reqire a block, just a notice on someone's talk page. Your actions, however, would require a one-day block for being incivil. And we all know this is you:

Importing that template would be more than useless; blocked users cannot comment on their talk pages here. That is custom 'pedia software. I understand you can't see, or didn't notice the deleted redirect that caused the block. Misspelling vandalism might be good for Wikipedia, but doesn't have a place here. A one day block. Your realize you are going on and on about a one day block, right? --Connel MacKenzie 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

and the signed "no" comment, with no explanation.

You don't explain why importing the "template" (software) would be useless (in actuality I believe it to be useful), just name-calling, just like you did with the [r]thing.

If this was not you, then I'm sorry. --Ionas F

And I do agree with Anetode: You are biting an innocent, well meaning kid and refused to AGF, even if those unsigned comments are not you, the signed ones are enough to prove your incivility and liberal use of the word "vandalism", which, can be considered a personal attack. --Ionas F. -- 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that citing "stupidity" as a block reason is perfectly acceptable wikt procedure. And if you're going to make accusations against Connel, it would be nice if you could at least sign your accusations. Atelaes 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, in and of itself is stupid. It is only what someone considered stupid, this is new to me, I don't consider a good-faith attempt to include an alternate spelling as vandalism or stupid. I don't think what somebody considers stupid to be a block reason, unless it violates some kind of spirit or letter of policy or guideline, in which, I think Connel should be blocked. --Ionas F. 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, in my view, evading a multi-wiki (WMF-wide, right?) ban to troll here, knowing full well you again, can't see deleted edits...gee whiz. That's stupid. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, in my view, this wiki is overly tolerant with people like you who constantly break the spirit of the guidelines, and then are exempt from blocks. I am not under a WMF-wide ban. I didn't say shit about deleted edits. Was it you that made those unsigned edits? -- 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Ionas F.[reply]
Yes it was. But see Atelaes' comments, and if you want to discuss stupidity as a reason for blocking, there is already a thread in the Beer Parlour. Please stop harassing Connel. Harass me instead if there is something you would like to know. This conversation ends here. DAVilla 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never make unsigned comments. Perhaps someone subdivided my statements for some reason or another. But I sign my talk page comments. --Connel MacKenzie 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been the horizontal rule that threw him off, but if it was my fault in dividing the statements then my apology for the lack of clarity. DAVilla 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be lying if it didn't bother me at all...but it doesn't bother me too much - I don't think many people were mislead (or even confused) by it. Well, with one obvious exception. But I think that is another (entirely separate) agenda, rathen than genuine confusion...and completely irrelevant. --Connel MacKenzie 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Connel. Is[edit]

Hot Tea a troll? Jcwf 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by meatball's definition, 100%. --Connel MacKenzie 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IRC is handy in too many ways. It is useful for asking a question, because 20 people have the opportunity to give you an immediate answer. (Or in my case, if, say, I were to be flying off the handle in exasperation, someone like User:Opiaterein can provide a word of caution that I apparently need, on occasion.) IRC itself is a simple protocol (you can turn on a primitive link to it, in WT:PREFS, or use a nicer client like Chatzilla, or use a medium-level tool like {{USERNAME}}.) About half the conversations tend to be about specific words, half about technical questions (bot/XML/JS) and a small amount of grousing about wiki politics. Some people use it very efficiently, connecting only one or two hours a week. Others (like me) maintain persistent connections, then "backread" to keep up with current events. It provides access to some of the more advanced vandalism tools as well. Lastly, it inherently promotes cross-wiki cooperation (tremendously.) I haven't seen many blatant abuses of the tool; abuse there tends to get smacked down rather quickly. While I'm sure some subtle abuses of the tool must exist, those are not endemic to IRC. Overall, I find it to be a useful tool. --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Connel MacKenzie[edit]

my friend got blocked due to semperblotto who is he? can he or you unblock him due to vandal lonestar

View source From Wiktionary for User talk:Connel MacKenzie Jump to: navigation, search You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by SemperBlotto. The reason given is this: exceeded crap limit You may contact SemperBlotto or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. If you have an account, you can still edit your preferences when you are blocked.

Your IP address is Please include this address in any queries you make.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

the reason is unknown he always says excessive crap limit --Lone.guner 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the block log, and the crap limit was indeed exceeded from this IP (for example, throwing a delete tag on a perfectly good article here). It's a one day block, so tell your friend to try being more productive tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already replied to him via e-mail. I'm not about to wheel war over a valid block. Excessive poor-and-mediocre edits are the primary complaint. (Note also that the three week incremental block was instead, only one day.) It would behoove him to follow some of my recommendations on that e-mail...and ask for some specific help on specific entries during the block period, so he can come back and vindicate himself (instead of repeating past performance.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the fuck unblock him dont tag team shit on me and 22332 whatever i thought was vandalism due to some asshole that fucked it up i wanted to revert it fuckers —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lone.guner (talkcontribs).

I think I'll let DAVilla take it from here. --Connel MacKenzie 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With those words he won't receive much sympathy from me, but he could try to get an explanation out of SemperBlotto which I think was the original question. DAVilla 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

davilla you like a war monger or something oh blotto is a ****** —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lone.guner (talkcontribs).

Coding information[edit]

Can you help me understand your code that you use for your wiktionary analysis? For instance in User:Connel_MacKenzie/checktrans I assume the code at the top is shell code, but have you made 1-letter aliases to specific commands? Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much more interesting than that. See w:MUMPS ... (yes, commands can be abbreviated to one letter) Robert Ullmann 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is w:MUMPS AKA "M." After each XML dump, I import into my M database the contents of en.wiktionary. I leave little one-liners like that around, to help me remember what I did, particularly when I forget about it for a month or a year. To translate that to pseudo-code for you:
  kill                   ;erase all local variables - start clean
  write #                ;clear screen)
  set x=""
  for  (~= "while (true)") do:
    set x=$order(^wiki2(x)) ;next iteration in main table of Wiktionary entries
    quit:x=""            ;exit loop when done
    set t=^(x,"text")    ;get the text from ^wiki2(x,"text")
    set n=^("name")      ;get the page name from ^wiki2(x,"name")
    if t["{{checktrans", ; "[" = "contains"
       t'["{{ttbc",      ; "," is logical "and" here
         then  write "[["_n_"]] "
               write:$x>60 ! ;wrap text nicely for cut-n-pasting

Hope that helps. --Connel MacKenzie 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a program around somewhere to convert syntactically correct code into expanded pseudo-code like the above, somewhere, and planned to expand all of at some point, if anyone is interested. Propably more important is to refresh the contents of that directory so that it is current. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome![edit]

{{User talk:Amgine}}

Thanks Connel! - Amgine/talk 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Connel, I'm a bit confused by your recent edit to the article TLC where your removed the {{initialism}} header template from the Spanish section. The article no longer categorises into any Spanish category - are we doing away completely with header templates and if so I suppose we need to add category links as appropriate?--Williamsayers79 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. That template can be used as a definition-line quaalifier, but the "|lang=" stuff can't go in headings. Sorry I missed the category. --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary discussion[edit]

Hi Connel,

As per the discussion at User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#Re:_Template:R:Urban_Dictionary, I started a thread in the beer parlour at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Referencing_user-contributed_dictionaries_.28like_Urban_Dictionary.29.3F, linking to relevant discussions.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


halp! I got the note about the prod on Affetti, so I went to try to move it over to Wiktionary...but there is already a definition over there for a different meaning of the word...can you help me to sort it out properly so I don't mess anything up over there? The definition that is already there is that its a plural of an Italian word, and I'd like to add the art definition that we've got here but I'm barely up to speed editing over here, I don't want to destroy anything over there :) THANK YOU!! Legotech 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see our entry for affetti - that is what you mean? If not, then pleae add {{Copy to Wiktionary}} to the top of w:Affetti (again?) and it will become Transwiki:Affetti here, to be move/merged into our entry here, if needed. But it already looks to me, like someone has gone to the trouble of trimming the art definition down to a concise, comprehensible definition here, so I'm really unclear on what information you think is missing. --Connel MacKenzie 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brockton block[edit]

Please indulge me. This is a good case for me to begin to understand the issues around problem-user or problem-IP behavior. "Brockton" has sent me terse e-mails about "Causeway" "accidentally" causing a block. I noted that Causeway had spammed, apparently once. I take it that the IP address is now blocked. Brockton is, at present, a marginally positive contributor, possibly educable. It could easily be that multiple individuals using a single IP connection sign up for accounts, couldn't it? How many offenses were there from that IP account? If there were not too many, say, 3 or fewer, could we give Brockton a chance? Is there any way of having a really tight monitor on that IP address? Is there a way for non-checkusers to "watch" a specific IP address? (I'd volunteer to monitor anyone I went to bat for, although not 24/7!) Let me know if I have misread the situation and your thoughts about it at your convenience. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Sorry for barging in) No, this is a long-time sockpuppet whose entries are fairly easy to spot. It has taken him about two years to learn to add a ==language== and ===part of speach=== headers. ALL of his entries need tender loving care, and most of them are not worth the trouble. SemperBlotto 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Easy-to-spot", but ineffably, I take it. Not just always the same IP address? So the result of multiple simultaneous uncoordinated, non-expert patrollers is that we get several entries from the same editor in RfV, RfD, or heavy edit. Suggests signing up for coverage in shifts, if it can be done securely. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the accounts blocked yesterday were a result of a positive CU check. Many, many, many other directly-related accounts with inconclusive CU results have been left alone, for now. --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, wilco. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wayobjects Talk:Wayobjects (Copy and paste from)[edit]

2008-01-27 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

Template:transwikied to Wiktionary --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet successfully completed!!! Peter Horn 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary in turn should refer/link back to the Wikipedia to cover[edit]

Peter Horn 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as well as
Before deleting this article look at "what links here".

User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No definition yet either way:

INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|Wayobjects}} INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|Wayobject}} User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The contents have NOT actually been moved!!! User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Horn 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I see Transwiki:Wayobjects just fine. The process is not complete, but that step (getting it from Wikipedia to Wiktionary) is complete. Perhaps I don't understand the question? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this[edit]

Ok i am new here but i miss spelt my name how can i change it. ~~~~God Loves & You 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Changing username if you have an edit history, but in your case just register a new account and stop using the old one. DAVilla 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. GLYASDI. And yes, your reminder is appreciated right now! --Connel MacKenzie 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extracting Multiword Terms -Transferred from SemperBlotto[edit]

Butting in, if I may. John, that sounds very interesting. I've done a straight frequency count of the contents of Project Gutenberg, myself. I haven't done the collocations (SMOC & time constraints) yet. Are there any published algorithms, e.g. for case sensitivity, sentence boundaries, clause boundaries, etc.? I think if the community here sees a list of the top 1,000 collocations, they may soon thereafter change their tune on "Sum-of-Parts" and what it means. (Adding a little levity to a dry topic:  :-) Also, are there any free (as in speech) references out there that you've seen? Of the free sources out there, my frequency analysis is by far, the largest (which I frankly think is pathetic.) But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places? (Or really, looking at all.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Connel. There has been a lot of published work with mutual information in text over the past 40 years in Computational Linguistics and Machine Translation communities. The simplest and fastest algorithms use heuristics to include some minimal syntactic constituency into the phrase bounding. So for example instead of doing a complete syntactic parse in order to determine noun phrase boundaries you can just use a list of prepositions and make sure that you don't let one end up phrase final. In other words you don't want "The city of London" and "The city of Paris" to suggest that "The city of" is a significant collocation because it isn't a syntactic constituent. I work with proprietary software, but you might check out "AntConc" on wikipedia. It is a freeware concordancer from Laurence Anthony that claims to extract collocations. It has been on my list to play with it, but I haven't had time. For fun, here's a few of the most frequent collocations that I just mined from the first 10 chapters of Pinocchio from wikisource.

Key Word Term # times # Tok piece of wood 11 3 go to school 7 3 Talking Cricket 6 2 Mastro Antonio 6 2 Mastro Cherry 5 2 A-B-C book 4 2 old man 4 2 tiny voice 4 2 three pears 3 2 Very bad 3 2 no one ! 3 3 Mastro Geppetto 3 2 run away from home 3 4 tip of his nose 2 4

Johnfbremerjr 11:65, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm curious as to why they found it necessary to parse a sentence grammatically (isn't that impossible in English?) to apply rules. That presupposes much more than I am likely to do in my brute-force approach to analyzing Project Gutenberg. I suppose I should exclude single word propositions (and articles and single word conjunctions) from consideration, for speed and size purposes. I didn't do that when trying to "fingerprint" different writer's styles experimentally 1, 2, 3, 4, and was not displeased with the results. But failing to exclude them might be a DB size issue. Getting too fancy with heuristic exclusions, is probably a bad idea at this stage. Thank you for your comments. (OK, back to regularly scheduled discussion.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some algorithms you could use that are very simple and that could get you good recall on finding collocations. You can always add linguistic knowledge later to improve precision and clean things up. Improving the precision is the "last 10%" that takes years of effort and tons of code to achieve, but even without it I think the rough collocation lists sorted by frequency can be very helpful for lexicon construction. So to start really really simple you could just stick all of the terms from a text into an array tokenized by whitespace, e.g. "I make cup cakes and they eat cup cakes too" becomes myWordsArry[0]="'I'", myWordsArry[1]="'make'", etc. Then you can have a companion hash that you can use to look up the offsets of any particular term, e.g. myAllWordsHash{'cup'} = "2,7" meaning that the word "cup" is the 3rd and 8th whitespace delimited term in the text. Once you have these data structures constructed you can use a single pass algorithm to calculate the multiword terms "headed" by any given term. You do this by sorting the hash by the terms and then walking through it doing a pairwise comparison of each entry to the next. So for example you look up all the instances of "cup", append some context words and sort, and then compare the instance n to n+1 one word at a time moving left to right. So in the example above we would have line n "cup cakes and" and line n+1 "cup cakes too", so we would compare line n, word w+1 "cakes" with line n+1, word w+1 "cakes" and recognizing that "cup cakes" has been repeated we would add it to our multiword terms myMultiwordTermsFrequencyHash{"'cup cakes'"}+=1 and push (myMultiwordTermsOffsetsHash{"'cup cakes'"}, [2,7]) so that we are keeping track of how many of each multiword term there are and what the offsets back into the text are in case we want to fetch them out later. I call this algorithm "Johnny's Virtual-Concordance-Driven Multiword Term Spotting". FYI, when you do teh comparison of terms you can make sure that you're starting on a left most head by looking left one word comparing line n, word w-1 to line n+1, word w-1 in order to make sure that you're not in the middle of a collocation that is headed by another word. Johnfbremerjr
Wow, something you said there, made me realize that going backwards will be much easier! The first pass through I can do all two word collocations. Second time through, all three-words. Third time, four-word combinations. But going backwards will make my "simple" collocation finder much more efficient with regard to sentence boundaries. I won't dare check anything to prevent larger group inclusion, as that's kindof pointless for Wiktionary: we want the most common two word and most common three word combinations and four, five, six...combos. The more I look at the theory, the more I think any reduction is wrong, for this purpose. Pronouns can be excluded pretty easily from the results, but rebuilding them later, if curious, is essentially impossible. Hmmm. --Connel MacKenzie 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about not excluding stuff. A lot of the work I've done in the past has been focused on entity recognition so that means I'm mostly limiting things to Noun Phrases, but I've seen lots of work trying to do stuff like text mining for verb subcategorization frames. A full on syntactic parsing system for natural language needs really detailed descriptions of the different possible argument structures for each word. These often include prepositions, "He blew in her ear" and particles, "He blew the bus up". Some systems go even farther and start to assign possible semantic roles to the differnt argument structures. So for example with the syntactic entry for "blow" with the particle "up", X blows Y up you might define X as an agent of the action that is human or robot and Y as the target that is material. It would be nice to see Wiktionary start to define some XML schemas for the dictionary entries such that they could eventually be used as a computational resource. Right now they are pretty informal. Johnfbremerjr 19:23 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. That's really annoying. You've reminded me I'm supposed to help set up rfc:2229 on toolserver with what's-his-name. Now that the new en.wikipedia XML dump is available, there's a crunch on, to get it available as a bittorrent. (Which I also don't have the free disk space to do.) Ugh. Need more terabytes. --Connel MacKenzie 04:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback script[edit]

Hello Connel MacKenzie,
you both have made a great job! But, please have a look on User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#Your_feedback.js. --- Greetings, Melancholie 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another bug: See there - Click on an article link and you will get to instead of! "Allowing multiple votes is intended as we'd have to do privacy-invasive stuff, otherwise.": Already considered cookies? --- Greetings, Melancholie 07:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the works right, now.
Yes, already considered cookies. We assumed we'd have less than 300 votes/clicks per day (so you should expect about 20, I think?) and since they are purged after a day or two, (or a week) and the counts don't really matter it was assumed (by me, mainly) that 500,000,000 votes for MILF would be pretty obviously from just one person.
But now that you mention it, preventing it on the server-side would certainly prevent someone from even trying. And TS is rather overloaded as it is, so preventing attacks is a Good Thing. I'll work out the iphash stuff tomorrow. --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blegumph! Cruddy server-side check is in place. Enjoy! --Connel MacKenzie 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important: User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#IE7_does_not_vote! --Melancholie 11:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resulting page on the toolserver opened in a iframe when voting currently shows the number of votes so far. If we want to show the actual results of the feedback survey for the given page, we could do it like this (actually it's the only way, as "cross frame DOM access" is restricted for good reason by good web browsers (and maybe even by IE ;-) Another possibility would be just to let the toolserver result page alert() the results... --- Best regards, Melancholie 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.s.: Just linking to the new per page result pages is easier (regarding little space in box), see de:MediaWiki:If-anon-feedback.js and de:MediaWiki:If-user-feedback.js. --- Greetings, Melancholie 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. I need some translation help with those. What does it say? --Connel MacKenzie 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say, that <h5> and fb_thanks are linked to the pages you provided yesterday! Furthermore for users those links are shown in the toolbox, now (in German Wiktionary). --- Greetings, Melancholie 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sry, busy with archiving, (interrupted by CU) so, maybe tomorrow I'll write the single-page thing. --Connel MacKenzie 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. OK, where was I? Oh, almost done with WT:DEL archive rebuilding... --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also intend to output the results by a given time range? E.g. 2008-02-20 til 2008-02-25? Because vote results for only one day aren't very representative, I guess! --- Best regards, Melancholie 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the original idea was for monthly (only) tallies. I'm not so sure the daily-thing is a good idea, in the long run. --Connel MacKenzie 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


now work, with the default for &fb_wiki=enwiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Connel,
Nevertheless, this project gets better and better :-) --- Best regards, Melancholie 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I presume you were referring to my work on Little Russia. (What does WWIN mean?)

I started each entry with the simple definition, and then expanded it to specifically define what the thing is, and what it is not. I'm not sure how to accomplish this without referring to the historic facts. I also tried to be precise about specific translations that are often used indiscriminately, like province, district, region, etc. It's a detailed definition, but I tried to restrict it to a definition and not attach unnecessary encyclopedic information.

Feel free to pare it down if you see anything which doesn't fit the bill. —Mzajac 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What Wiktionary Is Not."  :-)
I'm not sure that two separate senses is accurate. The word is used to mean anywhere around there, not the exact, specific boundaries, right? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little Russia in general meant lands inhabited by Little Russians—ethnic Ukrainians. I suppose at the time in colloquial Russian it would also refer to Ukrainian lands outside of the Russian Empire (i.e. parts of Austrian Galicia and Ottoman Bukovyna).
But the territory of Little Russia also included political-administrative divisions which had Little Russia as part of their official name (the Province, later Governorate of Little Russia, and still later the Little Russian Governorates-General of the Left Bank and of the Right Bank), as well as at least one which didn't (the Province of Kharkiv). These did have specific boundaries (which were shuffled around several times in history).
See also my recent contribution to Ruthenia.
Thanks. —Mzajac 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, my CanOD only has an entry for Little Russian, hist. n and adj, defined as "(a) Ukrainian". —Mzajac 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I also deleted this entry at 18:32 I think it should be watched, along with anyone who tries to re-enter it. Cioa. -- Algrif 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. After a couple more I'll protect the deleted page. Won't cry if someone beats me to it, though.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better still, would be if the real definition was entered then semi-protected. --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary-l subscribers[edit]

I am not subscribed to the wiktionary-l mailing list (nor do I intend to add yet-another-mailing-list-that-I'll-never-in-a-million-years-be-able-to-stay-on-top-of) and I think you mentioned that you are. Could you please announce Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2008-02/User:TheDaveRoss there? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little embarrassed to say that I'm not either. I figure as long as I'm active here there's no need to be, right? Hopefully someone will see this and pick up on it. DAVilla 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've passed it on to IRC - couple subscribers of were there. --Connel MacKenzie 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it seems to be an Information Desk for WikiMedia non-Wiktionary regulars. Since this is the only project I much care about, I don't see the point of joining. DAVilla 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m:n:project:IRC and #cafenea[edit]

Dear Connel; Thanks again for your help at #cafenea. I have seen that the bot « CalulBalan » has Wiktionary and not Wikipedia as default project family:

[[Craiova]] links to at Wik†ionar (Wiktionary in Romanian language] as

it should link to

[[Craiova]] at Wikipedia in Romanian language as

Could you please change this? Thanks for all your help in advance! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done? --Connel MacKenzie 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I must be missing something.. I have never edited this entry.. 16@r 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: visualisation. /Butting in. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on his talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this reflects a larger problem; foreign words entered that preclude English words (by merit of us not even seeing the the red-links, because they are blue) are not methodically search and detected. AFAIK, 16r is the first user to actively enter such terms; earlier similar mistakes have been caught much more quickly. I must admit, the obscure British spelling is uncommon, which may have compounded the issue for this particular entry. --Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem in every language other than English, where the color of the link is not reliable. That it's a rare problem for English is not the fault of any particular contributor. The OED Any unabridged dictionary (edit:) The English language itself has several times as many English words as we do, and the odds are a number of them are blue here and lacking an English section. Yeah, you could ask for a quick look-up, and that's going to create a lot of entries like jefe which you weren't too thrilled about, if I remember correctly. Anyway, this entry was created a year ago, so...? DAVilla 11:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you don't use Hippietrail's "Orange links" thing. Wholesale copyright violation from the OED is a very strange conclusion to reach, DAVilla. On the other hand, "visualization" (and presumably its British counterpart also) is a painfully common word that shouldn't be precluded by FL entries. --Connel MacKenzie 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it could use some fine tuning, and as a bonus maybe it could be useful for languages other than English as well. Wasn't it exactly Hippietrail who'd been working on language discrimination?
OED was given as an example. I should have appealed to M-W since I forgot you don't consider the OED to be as authoritative. DAVilla 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hippietrail's thing does work, but only if you turn it on. The OED is an authoritative collection of most possible combinations of letters, especially obsolete combinations. With the signal to noise ratio being so low for the OED, indeed, I do not consider it to be of any usable value. But that aside, wholesale copyright violation from is not acceptable either, particularly when trawling their lists for obscure (or very obscure) items. We have our own methods for generating lists of missing entries; copying from other references is always wrong, here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this is getting off-point, and I agree with everything you say, so I'll just correct myself and drop it. DAVilla 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word list[edit]

I was checking links into a word and found your page User:Connel MacKenzie/usr/share/dict/words. Great list of words. I don't recognize the source file: how reliable is it for spelling and such? Should I expect to find many words that don't meet CFI? Thanks. RJFJR 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the main file used for "aspell" on Because I'm not certain of it's source, I'm not sure it can be used here...perhaps it should be listed on RFDO as a possible copyright violation...if I can't figure out where it came from. --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I googled aspell and found which says it is part of GNU. Should be a compatible license if it was entered as part of gnu but we might have to better document the source. As a word list for checking our coverage, like a concordance, seems OK to me. We may want to delete it when we're done checking our coverage. RJFJR 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. I found the same site at about the same time you did, from the man page. Digging just a little further, it seem that Kevin says it is - wait, I can't tell what the heck he's saying they are released as. (But yes, whatever it is, he obviously intented for it, as we do, to be GNU-compatible! I.e. GPL or GFDL.) To answer your earlier question regarding our CFI, I think DAVilla's vote of Sep/Oct/Nov 2007 makes those ones "likely to meet CFI" but I (obviously) never completely understood his specification there. The Given Names and Surnames and Place Names, seem to have general consensus for inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like being bold, splitting that into 26 subpages, I'd be quite pleased. --Connel MacKenzie 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting into subpages is complete. While doing that I noticed a number of pipe characters embedded in the data. I don't know what they are doing there. (It also has a number of names of brand name products). RJFJR 03:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PREFS arabic alphabet[edit]

There are several characters which I cannot click in the "special characters in the search field" box. - [The]DaveRoss 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the section name in MediaWiki:Edittools... --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have started working randomly, I'll fiddle around and see if I can figure out what it was. Thanks - [The]DaveRoss 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like a caching problem. ctrl-f5? --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been, haven't been able to reproduce. - [The]DaveRoss 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Literal and figurative language[edit]

Hi. I just rolled back a couple of stupid entries, only to realise that the earlier entries were further stupidities, and, as they cannot be rolled back I'm not sure of the correct procedure. Can I leave it with you? Cheers. -- Algrif 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In the interests of peace of mind I have deleted my comment from your talk page. DaBPunkt fixed the problem by manually editing the database. Yours Conrad.Irwin 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Dude, it's a wiki. Seeing goofy "hacking" attempts is part of the game - the fact that you can sometimes see them means they didn't work. (Presumably, because I did sanitize the input adequately during the early tests, blah, blah, blah.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I reverted your edit of this entry. The definition which you introduced is not supported by the Wikipedia article on this substance. __meco 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is completely false - I made that modification because of the Wikipedia article and its references. --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written most of that Wikipedia article and have been following the Jenkem story for close to two years now. Your reading of that article cannot be other than superficial, and I am surprised that you don't take a second and more thorough look when you are being corrected. What Jenkem is is not what the controversy you seem to have balked at is about. The controversy is all about whether Jenkem use has been taking place, or taking a foothold even, in the US. I have now added a paragraph to the introduction of the Wikipedia article to emphasize this distinction. The part about it being a hoax should definitely be removed from the dictionary definition. __meco 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


your allegation that this edit inserted "false" information is completely unfounded. The edit did cite the source consulted (OED). The information added is directly informed by OED: lob n. (1) "a spider".[5] lob n. (2) "A country bumpkin: a clown, lout. Now dial."[6] One would expect the minimal courtesy that you would actually verify a claim before idly claiming it is "false", let alone revert it, let alone use the block function. When in doubt, a polite enquiry often works wonders. Your misplaced aggression is damaging to the project: it seems obvious that you should not be trusted with admin functions. Dbachmann 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned above, the OED is not a reliable source. That's one reason we have {{nosecondary}}. Furthermore, I specifically referenced 1913 - that "spider" meaning is a fabrication, as is the "bumpkin" meaning. --Connel MacKenzie 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rechecking the "The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)" yes, indeed, both "spider" and "bumpkin" meanings are clearly fabrications, not obsolete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About block earlier[edit]

Hi, Connel, I remember you blocking me 23 days ago when I was adding to marshmallow, and you just plain blocked me for it when I did nothing wrong. That was uncalled for. You were biting a newcomer for that. I'm somewhat inexperienced with this wiki, and I'm beginning to get more as I get used to it. I still didn't like that block you gave me. I find it impolite to block anyone who did nothing wrong. I was about to add more references to my userpage until you came along and blocked me for no apparent reason, but you say I inserted false information, but it was not false info, it was only a misspelling added! When I was blocked, I was extremely embarassed (and not in a good way)! I couldn't add any references, or even leave messages! Then I had nothing to do! That made me feel like I was under a curse, because it worsened my day. You know how rude it is to block innocent users when they were doing nothing wrong. You owe me an apology.Kitty53 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but in, however: Kitty53 as you have not bee following this discussion on Wiktionary, you will not know the amount of fuss it caused. Had you read all of that (it is spread around in the Beer parlour and the Wiktionary vote archives among other places) then you would not be asking this. This discussion has been settled to the satisfaction of the Wiktionary community, and it does not need further discussion. Yes, Connel may have been wrong but please, for the sake of the community, rise above it. Conrad.Irwin 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about that; habits from Wikipedia and all. :) Trivialist 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i tried to stop some of it. and also good to see ya connel. -- 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding up bot[edit]

Is there a way to speed up bots? Whenever mine's going, it announces it is sleeping for 3.8 seconds, before adding the next page. Any way of making the 3.8 seconds become 0.1 seconds, and speeding the process up? --Keene 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The I think is where that setting hides. (Maxsleep, or something.) Be sure you have the community nod before doing so. (In general, I think the sleeps are harmful, as they don't spare the servers any significant grief, but do make it annoying to watch and wait for.) The one reason to keep (or increase) the sleep, is if you have had entries questioned, and people still want to review them closely for a few more weeks. (And what do you care? The bot will catch up while you sleep, but your main entries are still normal speed, simply queueing up a gazillion form-of entries, right? Or has that bot changed that much since I last saw it?) --Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I was pretty close. It is, but it is minthrottle and maxthrottle. --Connel MacKenzie 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually. And "put throttle". At least on mine. --Keene 10:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no, is something different. (Unless I've done it wrong...entirely possible.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to make the changes in, not in See note at the top of Else your configuration will get overwritten when you update to a new version of the framework. Robert Ullmann 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connel my wiki[edit] i thought you might like to join. --Yukongold 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also just wondering but how can i create my own wiktionary? please reply. --Yukongold 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

morris dance[edit]

Hi. I looked at the IP's edit earlier today, and decided it was a more accurate description. Being from UK, and having seen many morris dances, I would agree that "team" is not only the correct word, but also, women can sometimes be included. Furthermore, sticks are optional, not essential. -- Algrif 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are now crisscross posting. Having never seen one, eliminating the fact that it is traditionally a men's dance is astoundingly misleading. Please take a look at Definition sometime - the purpose of defining a term is not to mislead readers. If you want to tweak the wording to say "usually by men" or "mostly by male dancers" or "almost always men" or similar, that is one thing. But eliminating the meaning is quite another. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken -- Algrif 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And yes, I plan on removing that short term block as soon as I've finished correcting the other edits and talk-paging.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for AGF of someone who obviously is here with a twisted agenda. Is there any reason to waste my time researching this stuff? When they are crap contribs, they are crap; I guess my instinct to just rollback all was probably better. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never (ever) seen women morris dancing. Perhaps it is a modern feminist thing. Also, the use of sticks or handerchiefs (I think) is a matter of local convention - I've seen hankies in Gloucestershire and sticks elsewhere. SemperBlotto 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was just poor vision, fooled by the drag costumes? I don't know, and don't care what that person's problem is/was. --Connel MacKenzie 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I guess you're right. I mean, I had actually seen the word in a magazine before, but I suppose I shouldn't have edited seeing as how I forgot to write down any of the neccessary citation info. Thanks for correcting me. Teh Rote 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message at my talk page[edit]

Hello Connel, I do not understand the intention of the welcome message from you at my user talk page. What part of that message should I take notice of? --Daniel Polansky 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the entries you've entered this last month (since the 2/14/2008 XML dump) are in conflict with WT:ELE - obviously you aren't following it, or you wouldn't be generating cleanup items. "Welcome", as always, is a plea for you to read WT:ELE and follow it. --Connel MacKenzie 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now, could you please mention one or two of these entries? I really have no idea in which way I am breaking layout conventions. This nonspecific feedback does not really tell me how I can improve. I have read WT:ELE, and have always tried to stick to it, checking it in case of doubt. --Daniel Polansky 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. I've just checked twice and I think I may have misclicked (wrong username,) as I see nothing untoward in any of your recent contributions, nor anything you did previously to my edits around the time I posted that message on your talk page. I had quite recently finished regenerating so there may have been a section there with headings with spaces in them, or something, that you coincidentally edited. If I see something again, I'll be sure to be much more specific. --Connel MacKenzie 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it is clarified now. When I have read at my talk page that I might want to consider to log in instead of using anonymous IP, I originally thought it must have been a kind of misclick. Anyway. :). --Daniel Polansky 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sidebartrans to WT:PREFS[edit]

I was wondering if it'd be ok to edit User talk:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js to add an option for User:Bequw/sidebartranslate.js to WT:PREFS? It converts the sidebar languages to be displayed in English (rather than in the FL). It's copied from w:User:Tra/sidebartranslate.js and I've been using it for a while. Thanks --Bequw¢τ 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fantastic. You'll add #44 to User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js then again where it load the JS in the middle section, then add a commentary for it at the bottom. I do wish this had been moved out of my talk space sooner. Moving it now will break many things (some not even on en.wiktionary!) --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: yes, please be bold. --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bolded. See if you like it. --Bequw¢τ 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. (I have it turned on, seems to work well!) --Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Czech proverbs[edit]

Hello Connel, recently, when you asked me to keep WT:ELE, you could have had the following in mind:

I have created that entry in the hope that in that state it is better than nothing, and that someone else can do the rest of the work, like wikifying the words of which the entry is composed. I too am wikifying some other entries, and cleaning them up, after someone else has left them in an imperfect state.

If you prefer that I do not create these Czech proverb entries at all, I can do so.

I cannot with any confidence provide the idiomatic meaning of the entry, despite being a native speaker. To me, proverbs are strange beasts; any attempt of mine to provide their idiomatic meaning would be guesswork.

What I could promise to do next time around is to wikify the single words of which the entry is composed.

You asked why {{infl}} is not used. Is that template preferable to {{cs-prov}}? Why? Are not language specific templates preferable to {{infl}}? If not, is that documented somewhere? In that vein, is it then wrong to have and use {{cs-noun}}?

--Daniel Polansky 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue may also be resulting from the fact that WT:ELE says virtually nothing on the creation and formatting of proverbs, and that I have found no policy specifically on how do handle proverbs. It seems to me that handling non-English proverbs is rather specific as compared to, say, non-English nouns and adjectives. --Daniel Polansky 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put at its discussion page a close Romanian relative, hopefully whoever makes that page acceptable, will do the same for the other one too. --Skepsis 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay getting back to this. Every time I look a little closer, another subtlety appears. My initial complaint was about the format, not the contents. Proverbs are often some of the best entries on en.wiktionary. I'd be kicking myself for years, if I did something to discourage their entry.
It appears my chagrin was completely misplaced. I though that {cs-prov} was actually {cs-noun} or similar...I didn't realize it was the correct inflection template at all. Yes, all component words of the entry's headword need to be wikilinked (no matter what language) but in hindsight, that seems to be an astronomically petty concern.
Looking at the entry, I do recall wondering what the English equivalent was...and being annoyed that none was listed. Looking at it more and more, I can't think of an equivalent. The closest idiom we seem to have is "shit happens" which doesn't match the register, at all.
The {{infl}} is to be used only when there is no viable substitute like {{cs-prov}}. Using "cs-prov" is far and beyond, the right one to use there, so I'm now very confused, as to why I was so sure it was wrong. And apparently, at the time, I was.
Thank you very much, for clearing up my confusion on this one. I hope you can determine a closer English equivalent for it...none seem obvious, at the moment. --Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am about to replace the literal translation with an estimated meaning of the proverb, as I think finding a direct equivalent is going to be difficult. There is still one issue with the proverbs: where to put literal translations, and how to format them, given they are wanted at all. An attempt to sum up the issue has been made at Wiktionary talk:About Czech#Proverbs; I and User:ThomasWasHere found it difficult to determine what the common practice was, as follows from the table in the linked section.
An aside: I hope your talk page is not an altogether wrong place to discuss this issue. I already wondered whether I should have opened this thread at Grease pit. --Daniel Polansky 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is still fine for this, but yes, a separate discussion somewhere else is better (linking back here is OK.) The zh: idioms and proverbs are the gold standard for how to enter them. User:A-cai has done some spectacular work on those. Each idiom is different - sometimes it seems superfluous to enter a literal translation, other times absolutely essential.
Still wondering though..."no one lives forever"? "Nothing lasts forever"? --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links on zh: .
I estimate that the meaning of the proverb is: be careful not to use thing too much, lest they break down at some point. But I will check this with other Czech speakers.
Another issue: should I move Category:Czech proverbs to Category:cs:Proverbs? It seems to follow from your recent addition to Category:German proverbs, and from modeling on zh: proverb category. --Daniel Polansky 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall continue trying to walk on eggshells regarding that topic. I won't run '' on those until I have solid confirmation from EncycloPetey. --Connel MacKenzie 07:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

patrol error[edit]

Js error on wikt(3-5-08).jpg any thoughts? Not on the color, that is MSPaint's fault. - [The]DaveRoss 23:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I looked at that bug, I didn't find the repeat. I'm not sure if it really is getting marked three times separately or not. IFAIK, no one really cares to dig deep enough to find the error though. Not too many people see it, so I'm not too worried. Should I be? --Connel MacKenzie 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't concerned I am not concerned, just making you aware. - [The]DaveRoss 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Militant RFVing[edit]

Please take a step back for a moment, to consider the backlog of RFV. Items can be cleared and reviewed later. If you wish to call a small handful into question, please consider waiting a few days on them, so that some of the enormous discussions can shrink first. Then quietly (or otherwise) re-list the ones that overly concern you.

But do cease with the inane wheel-warring. --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don't know how tattle-taling helps anybody. Isn't anyone here a grown-up? It's also apparent that you chastise without having any clue of the infinitely minor scuffle that occurred today over the course of like 3 edits, at which point the dude apparently ran and tattled. You talk about "enormous discussions" shrinking in the next few days, when my concerns were only over six-month old discussions I was a part of and the other contributor was not. The other contributor made several unintelligent judgment calls about "passing" or "failing" when discussions were ambiguous and without closure at best (as many are). He then made a few retardedly careless errors -- selecting too much text and adding a retarded /nowiki block of deleted text on the top of a completely unrelated RFV with no explanation. Before getting out the schoolmarm ruler and calling me up to the blackboard, at least know what's going on and who the dunce is. -- Thisis0 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Show" tags[edit]

Do you wish to comment the discussions on Grease pit or Beer parlour before more is tried? :) Best regards Rhanyeia 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, those are of interest to me, but I haven't recently had time to keep up with new threads. --Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of categories for non-English proverbs[edit]

FYI, I have raised the issue of naming of the categories for non-English proverbs at Beer parlour. --Daniel Polansky 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the discussion was at WT:RFDO, actually. --Connel MacKenzie 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you obviously need more work to do...[edit]

I have no idea how to use AJAX and js to manipulate RC, but you do, so I was wondering how hard it would be to create a highlighting PREF-type thing, where I can choose a color to highlight a line of RC based on certain criteria (maybe light blue for talk pages, light green for NS:0, light red for talk pages...that kind of thing). Would AJAX/js be able to accomplish this and is it trivial enough that I could do it? - [The]DaveRoss 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

b:Special:PrefixIndex/Common phrases in various languages[edit]

This will be deleted soon, and I think someone over here decided it was wanted. Would you please confirm that's so, or else let me know it's not wanted. Either way, it needs to be deleted soon. Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! There's one or two smaller ones still in b:Category:Modules for transwiki, but nothing urgent (the above had been pending for some time, and needed to be deleted). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get all the subpages of b:Glossary of Astronomical Terms too? Just double-checking. No need to mark all of them, but just drop one on my talk if so. Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages? Oh no! Those are ALL subpages! --Connel MacKenzie 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wanted to make sure :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked[edit]

I can't understand why my user (User:Lou_Crazy) was blocked. It's the same username I use on en.wikipedia and other wikis. Can you help me? You can reply in my discussion page, I keep reading it.

-- 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user is not blocked, maybe it's a different problem (See ). Conrad.Irwin 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps. How is that an acceptable username anywhere? --Connel MacKenzie 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is unacceptable about "Lou Crazy" as a username? ("Lou is Crazy" I could understand). Thryduulf 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? In what way, does a suggestive name like that imply someone intends to help write a dictionary? A name like that is to cause disruption. Is he suggesting Wikipedia is crazy? Wiktionary is crazy? He is crazy? None of those things can be helpful to writing a dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, how on earth can you say that someone intends not to help write a dictionary just because of a name like "Lou Crazy"!? "Lou the troll", possibly (and even then not necessarily), but crazy has a range of meanings, many of them used harmlessly. Has it never been said that you're crazy to spend your free time writing a dictionary without getting paid? It's certainly been said to me. Perhaps Lou just took it as a monika like many disparaging and derogatory phrases are (one my nicknames is "Awkward" for example).
Alternatively, perhaps it is a username he uses elsewhere - perhaps he's crazily good at first-person shoot-em-up games, or perhaps he drives crazily in racing games? Maybe he's known for having crazy ideas like trying to convince people that there should be a Free dictionary that defines all words in all languages?
I would much, much rather let people's contributions speak for them rather than a name that may or may not mean anything in the context of Wiktionary. Looking at their en.wikipedia account they appear to be a respected editor, particularly with reference to Scouting articles. I am not aware of any case of a respected editor on one project being a vandal on another. Also, their user page there suggests their native language is Italian, we don't have Italian translations for all senses of crazy, and those we do have do not go into the nuances of meaning (I don't speak Italian).
All in all, see no reason at all for this user to be blocked based on their username. I will not unblock them myself, but I do hope that other admins offer their opinions and unblock if they deem fit. Thryduulf 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy can be considered an endearment or a comedy name, such as in one of the definitions of crazy is "overly excited or enthusiastic". If this is the only reason Lou is blocked I'd be very worried.... Goldenrowley 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried that you wish to support an obviously disruptive name - there is no possible positive connotation in this (dictionary) context. If he's crazy about a first-person shooter game, perhaps he should "play" that instead. --Connel MacKenzie 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I am extremely worried that you wish to block a user who is a proven and experienced contributor on at least two Wikipedias on the grounds of a username that is not offensive or indicative of disruption in the opinion of at least two other editors in good standing here (myself and Goldenrowley). Thryduulf 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in speculating on the meaning of a username. The name is not offensive or disruptive in any way. It is jocular at best, but none of us signed up to be high school librarians, so that's not an issue. The bigger issue here is the presumption that this user has already committed disruption, when the more likely scenario is that they will contribute in good faith (or would have), and it is, after all, on the merit of someone's edits that we ought to be judging them. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While there certainly are times when usernames are inappropriate and should be blocked solely based on the name (impersonating users, bots; obscenities), I do not think this case is one of them. Please Connel, unblock. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of our younger contributors will have silly on-line names. I think we need thicker skin and more evidence-based decision-making about such matters. DCDuring TALK 10:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 27 persons in the US with the last name "Crazy" listed in the online phone directory. DCDuring TALK 10:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Connel.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it is a harmless nickname. For example, I think of w:Crazy Horse. I'd give this person a chance. Goldenrowley 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why? --BiT 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was nonsense deleted? Is that the question? Or do you want to know if that is actually a word? It is not. Some kid in grade school apparently wants credit for coining it, a la JOSH IS GAY! --Connel MacKenzie 06:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I for one do not know in what condition the entry was in before you deleted it, but I do know that this is a highly prominent slang onomatopoeia and verb. You can see how many entries it has in the Urban Dictionary and the people I know in real life use it a lot (they used it a lot yesterday for that matter). --BiT 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Published books that use the term please. --Connel MacKenzie 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that its appearance in UD is a good indication that it is not a real word. --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course UD shouldn't be taken too seriously, but it's still a much used word. And since when do words have to have been published in books for them to become real words? The words "1337", "h4x0r" and "pwn" are all similar words which aren't likely to appear in books but are nevertheless used very frequently on the internet (on 4chan for example) and in video games. --BiT 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my idea to use published books as references, but I (like the Wiktionary community) agree it is the right compromise. Three printed books please, no secondary sources, showing the term in use. --Connel MacKenzie 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reference to three published books in the WT:CFI. --Richardb 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is on the RFV page. "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.". - [The]DaveRoss 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is in WT:CFI#Attestation: "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." The RFV text is quoting CFI. This being one of four alternatives, and the least subjective. Robert Ullmann 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To which the ridiculous grade-school inventions have always been held to the harshest interpretation of it. --Connel MacKenzie 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) And the obsolete meaning should be tagged as such. --Connel MacKenzie 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Connel- quick question. In the edit history, you added an image and added "candidate for POTY". What is POTY? sewnmouthsecret 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commons:COM:POTY.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've never even looked there before. sewnmouthsecret 03:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A possible task for Dvortybot[edit]

User:DerbethBot/Audio files it appears Derbeth is abandoning the effort, you have a ready-made audio-adding bot, so maybe you can see about them. - [The]DaveRoss 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before that last hard drive crash, the issue was Unicode. When I get back into the swing of things, I'll refactor that a bit to avoid bash entirely. --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The namespace breakdown table is lacking some namespaces, Citations: comes to mind. - [The]DaveRoss 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSS Word of the week for the Icelandic Wiktionary[edit]

Hi. Would you have time to make an RSS for the word of the week on the Icelandic Wiktionary? --Steinninn 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others[edit]

Hi Connel,

I blocked you for this edit because I'm not sure how often your bot runs and whether this would happen every time. Please unblock yourself once you've seen this and have fixed or disabled the bot.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

RuakhTALK 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, never mind, sorry. I don't know what's with that diff, but the page itself doesn't seem to have been affected. —RuakhTALK 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big problem, that I can see so far (your block.) I've restarted rat patrol; checking transwiki, killbot and the others now show no problems so far. --Connel MacKenzie 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; even that much sounds like a pain. Next time I'll examine more closely. :-/ —RuakhTALK 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archiving correctly[edit]

hey man. What's the process for removing a stricken entry from an RFV or RFD page and archiving it? Take gimp on RFV. It's been stricken for a while, and today I removed the rfv-sense tags from the entry, and archived the discussion to its the talk page within the rfv-passed template. Now what? Should I delete the section from the RFV page? Any guidelines? And then what steps are taken to properly archive it in the monthly RFV archives? Incidentally, I like your archiving method best -- the link to the old-id discussion -- better than duplicating the whole discussion in the rfv-passed template. teach me. -- Thisis0 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letting it sit for one week for FURTHER discussion is the rule. That is too hard to keep track of, so I automated it. If the message appears that it was still marked, that unfortunately counts as "futher discussion" for one additional week. When I remove the tags, I manually fudge the date of the signature of the "still tagged" notice, so that it archives on the hour, the very next hour. --Connel MacKenzie 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So how do those messages get to the archive page when someone else like DaveRoss deletes entries off the RFV page? -- Thisis0 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was looking for the word epicaricacy, only to find it had been deleted. I found the archived deletion discussion. I'd like to put in a definition for the word, my workup is here: User:Evrik/epicaricacy. Before I go recreating a deleted article, I wanted to get your blessing, as you have deleted it 2x in the past. Thoughts? Thanks. Evrik 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view (and Connel may well think otherwise) Wiktionary requires words to have "Citations" not "mentions" - the references you have provided are "mentions" there is no evidence that the word is actually used (though it probably is). If you look on or or then you will be able to find enough citations (3 "durably archived" - which discounts most normal websites - citations which do not explain the meaning of the word immediately before or after). It looks to me that there are probably enough mentions, but you would need to put them onto Citations:epicaricacy formatted in a way similar to Citations:straightjacket. The entry you have created is pretty good but needs a bit of tweaking to meet our formatting guidelines. I'll format it betterly, and you grab some cites - sound ok? (Obviously Connel can come along and delete it again, but if we have real cites then we are in a much stronger position). Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly looks like something I'll delete again. Two "use" citations from 2007 - and several other nonsense non-cites. --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to work aound processes in this case. Clearly, it is a nonsense term incorrectly used, when used. Items that have failed are normally held to the strictest standards (i.e. print citations only) when someone is proposing it be re-entered. If Wiktionary's role has changed, from that of reporting what words actually are used in the English language, to instead inventing definitions for nonsense, well, then, it should be allowed. But as far as I know, that is not the case. --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It looks as though the Wiktionary:Statistics hasn't been updated in a while. Would you mind? --EncycloPetey 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tomorrow afternoon or nag me some more I'll re-run it from the last successful XML dump (which was a while ago!) Every time I go to restart it, I get my hopes up that a new one will appear - then the XML dumps crash again. --Connel MacKenzie 07:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a dump more recent than 16 March? That's the date used for generating the last round of statstics. --EncycloPetey 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most recent successful XML dump for en.wiktionary - March 16th, 2008. --Connel MacKenzie 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If you're not going to respond on the RFV, I'll tell you straight-out that I have proven it is not a misspelling. Please fact-check further. :) Teh Rote 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule which you are ignoring is that English words never have three identical consonants. Your third grade teacher is to be reprimanded for not correcting your illiteracy then. Likewise, your fourth, fifth and presumably your current sixth grade teacher. --Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have had incomplete textbooks for the past ten grades, then, as I see no citations whatsoever for the hyphenated spelling, or citations for the "fact" that three letters are supposedly not used adjecently. A rule of prefixes in English is that -ship, -less, and -like are not hypenated; what about headship, fearless, and businesslike? They aren't spelled head-ship, fear-less, or business-like. In additon, it seems unfair to use the term "rvv" (reverted vandalism) in your edit summary, when we were not vandalizing, everything was well-cited, which is exactly what the rules state should be done. Teh Rote 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "rvv" was inappropriate, but please don't be silly: of course you see citations. Of the first ten hits at google books:"goddess-ship", five are uses of this sense, and another three are mentions of it. You're right that the suffixes and are not usually hyphenated (though with it seems to depend on the sense), but English writers have frequently made just this sort of exception; and , for example, are both very well attested. As for the rule about no triple letters — it's just a normal rule. It's obvious that you're aware of it, and IMHO pretty clear that it's the whole reason you created the entry. The question is, is it an absolute rule? And apparently it isn't; you've given some cites of , and b.g.c. turns up some more. (Also, apparently some dictionaries must include , , and , as they're in the major Scrabble word lists.) But it's also apparently a fairly strong rule, since most writers over the years have chosen to insert a hyphen, or to drop an <s>, in order to avoid violating it in this case. —RuakhTALK 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, no spellings should be listed as "misspellings", two should be listed as "alternative" and the other having the definition. That seems to be a reasonable solution. Teh Rote 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. :-)   —RuakhTALK 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Κύρια Σελίδα[edit]

I was about to delete this entry as nonsense, but then I saw that you had restored it because of high linkage. I was just wondering if this was still the case. I can put some feelers out with the Greek folks and see if they can figure something out if you still think there's an issue. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When WikiCharts was working, this entry appeared in the top 100 pages hit on en.wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of Wikipedia's CopyToWiktionaryBot‎[edit]

Hi, I am trying to better understand (and then document) Wikipedia-to-Wiktionary transwiki process. I understand most of it, except one case. Could you enlighten me what just happened with Purist? It seems to me that it was: (1) transwikied, (2) automatically marked as such in Wikipedia, (3) deleted by somebody from Transwiki:Purist, because purist already existed (4) cleared from the Wiktionary deletion log! This is bad, because suggestion left for Wikipedians was: either to delete "Purist" or replace it with a soft redirect. I'm thinking about adjusting Wikipedia templates (TWCleanup) to advice wikipedians to wait until the resolution of Wiktionary's transwiki is completed. Btw. I've improved bot's description, I hope it is better now. User:Kubanczyk -- 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something has gone wrong with the automation; its log shows it trying to do w:Military spouse just prior to Purist. Since (appoximately) then, it has "done" Military spouse over and over again. Purist was not imported here, which is why you don't see anything in the deletion log. Robert Ullmann 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Transwiki bot has been deactivated, due to the false positives it is getting from the "import pages" MediaWiki feature. I haven't yet contacted Brion to work out a resolution for it yet (only sent him a short message informing him about the problem so far.) Until it is worked out, we may need to fall back to "manual" sysop transwikis. --Connel MacKenzie 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn... Anyway, I've proposed a change in Wikipedia policy, which would help both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. User:Kubanczyk -- 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to re-run these yet? --EncycloPetey 13:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I see you made a recent reply above. I'll continue to be patiently frustrated by the system's constipation. --EncycloPetey 13:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teh Rote[edit]

I disagree with your summary that this is illiterate, though I agree it is rather modern. I may well reconsider this if you can persuade me ;). It might be an idea to ask them to change their username if you think this really is an issue. If you are actually blocking for a more discrete reason, could you use something like "check user evidence" in your summary. Conrad.Irwin 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I weak-agree that the username is illiterate, but do not think that illiteracy of a username promotes illiteracy much, or is a reason to block the user. Cf. "msh210".—msh210 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 21:10 UTC
Ditto. Cf. Rukhabot (talkcontribs). BTW, how did you include the Hebrew date in your signature? (Specifically, it looks like you must have modified your "Nickname" and started using ~~~ instead of ~~~~; is that true, or did you find a better way that I totally have to steal? :-) —RuakhTALK 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you got it. But I don't like it actually, as it uses the incorrect Hebrew date when it's after nightfall in Greenwich. (The Hebrew date changes at nightfall, not midnight, at least in Judaism. I don't know about Israeli legal use.) So I'm going to switch back.—msh210 2008-05-15 (10 Iyar 5768) 16:03 UTC
And in case you're curious, it's —[[User:Msh210|msh210]]{{subst:unicode|℠}} <small>{{subst:#time:Y-m-d (xjj [[xjF]] xjY) H:i}} UTC</small> with the "Raw" checkbox checked off.—msh210 2008-05-15 16:27 UTC
Thanks! :-)   Israeli legal use does indeed switch the dates at midnight; it's unfortunate, but it makes sense since Israel uses the same midnight-based clock as the rest of the world, and there's really no other way to handle things. It would be too much to have to pull out one's candle-lighting-times calendar to determine which came first, 6:15 PM or 6:16 PM (let alone the possibility that 6:16 PM could happen twice in a date, during the spring when sunset is later each day). The ancient system of nights, days, watches, and hours just wouldn't work for a society as time-obsessed as our own. —RuakhTALK 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well (my name is actually incorrectly romanized). And the Hebrew dates thing is pretty wicked. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
liKeWise. mY uSeR naMe hAs A CApiTal leTter iN tHe MiddLe. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must be thick. I don't even see the illiteracy. I thought that the spirit of a Wiki requires a large amount of tolerance and that blocking be limited to cases of bad behavior, usually repeated, and not outweighed by user contributions. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider teh. Or consider rote. What possible takes from just the username are possible? Thoreau? Learn by rote? Both component "words" are inherent abominations, but the user's actions of edit warring after discussion, specifically after their taunts above, make it very clear that he/she has no good intentions here. One reason for the block was given, but indeed, the user's actions prior to the block tipped the balance. --Connel MacKenzie 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd simply missed the existence of teh, but still don't find it offensive. I don't see any issue whatsoever with Rote, which is a Scandanavian surname, I believe.
So Wiktionary isn't prescriptive about entries, but is prescriptive about user names? I didn't find at WT:USER a community rule against illiteracy. In this case it seems that the same person was serving as legislator, judge, jury, and executioner. DCDuring TALK 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having read the entirety of this discussion I am still completely baffled as to why anyone has a problem with this username? From WT:USER: Usernames:
  • must not be offensive.
None of "teh", "rote" or "Teh Rote" are offensive to me, nor to anyone else who has commented here.
  • must not resemble another user's username, or anyone's real name (except your own), as these sorts of usernames can cause confusion and can seem deceptive.
I'm not aware of any similar usernames, and it is not similar the real name of any other user or famous person that I know of. There are no issues therefore with confusion or deception.
  • must not be promotional, i.e. they should not resemble a business name, trademark or web address.
Again, there are no issues with that one.
  • should be fairly easy for the typical English-speaker to recognize, remember, and type. This generally means being fairly short; using the Latin alphabet (though some digits, spaces, and/or punctuation may be included as well); and avoiding long unpronounceable sequences of characters. (This rule is somewhat flexible, and compromises may be made in borderline cases.)
"Teh Rote" doesn't fall foul of any of them.
The user also goes so far as to explain the etymology of their username to be "From leet "teh" and English acronym "Ruler of Third Earth"." Looking at w:Third Earth it appears "Third Earth" is a location in a fantasy series aimed at young adults or a location in a children's cartoon series. Neither is at all offensive in any way. I would also like to endorse DCDuring's final sentence. Thryduulf 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask that this topic be dropped. There is clear consensus that the username is not blockable, though that says nothing about the user. Any further driving home of this point is unnecessary. Conrad.Irwin 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is a tough idiom to capture. I've made an attempt; care to take a look? —RuakhTALK 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To hopefully reduce the need for such discussions as this in the future, see my suggestion at WT:BP#Offensive usernames and how to handle them. Thryduulf 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Thryduulf, but you have a very strange perspective, when you suggest that "leet" is in no way offensive, in and of itself. Yes, Wiktionary has a very long history of eliminating such cruft. --Connel MacKenzie 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly fond of leet, I find it ugly and pointless, but I do not find it offensive at all - indeed I can't understand how you do!? I do not understand your "cruft" comment, as leet is no more cruft than rhyming slang or any other regional or other specific group's terms are. Also, a user choosing to take their online name from something they are a fan of is a very different thing to including words from that topic in the dictionary. Thryduulf 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is offensive, from the perspective of analyzing and describing the English language, particularly, doing so correctly. To advocate leet, to the point of having it in one's username, is a clear indication that a person intends harm here. This is very much reinforced by that user's edit warring at goddessship, where a fundamental rule of English is their mission to attack. In English, for every rule there is an exception, right? Yet such an illiterate person is pushing the POV that no rules exist at all, furthermore, that even the most basic rules are not rules at all. To unblock someone like that, after their edit warring, bad username and trolling/taunting, is criminal. --Connel MacKenzie 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this user's contributions again, I have yet to see anything that was not blatantly wrong that they added. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
big Os
That' just some of them. I don't appreciate your comment; it seems to be a personal attack. In addition, there is clear concensus against you, and the discussion should be closed. Teh Rote 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the liberty of unblocking this user. Having reviewed the user's contributions, I'm not seeing either the pattern described above or the "stupidity" alluded to in your block summary. (Which is not to say that there isn't a need for improvement; but note that some of the user's contributions have already passed RFV, and none seem to be "blatantly wrong.") Cheers, -- Visviva 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference, between intentionally incorrect entries and the cleanup done to them as a result of the various processes here. Something "surviving" RFV does not mean the surviving entry is at all similar to the bad initial entry. The fact that the form is not criticized, instead, the actual content proffered, indicates that this is someone up to their old tricks. This is not simply some lack of AGF, rather, a response to their corresponding statements of bad intent, above. Their methods include "substing" indicator tags, complete elimination of tags and removal of any helpful indicators regarding their non-word contributions.
There is a world of difference, between casting a blind eye towards bad contributions that might have some merit, and violently, reprehensibly supporting a known-bad contributor simply because you dislike me or my methods. You do an infinitely horrible disservice to Wiktionary when you follow certain contributors incessant campaigning against me personally.
--Connel MacKenzie 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are effectively against almost all new contributors. That will condemn us to remain the 4th or 5th most popular, least up-to-date, and perhaps the 4th best dictionary on the web. We run a real risk of dieing on the vine. Should users have to take a test before they are allowed to contribute? DCDuring TALK 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is pointedly false. Not against all new contributors, but against all new contributors who arrive with a specific agenda of inserting errors (only) into Wiktionary. Your additional fallacies are simply inexplicable, or at best, way off the point. --Connel MacKenzie 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is false? I am speaking of the effect of an apparent practice of blocking instead of educating. If you do not want to educate, that is fine. But hand the user off to someone who is willing. We only find out about "errors" by working on the entries. Not all of them are errors. New users are going to work hard to find entries we haven't added. All of the gimmicky words that we have deleted constitute holes that they will want to fill. Perhaps we need to have entries for those items that only appear when a contributor tries to add them, but do not appear on normal searches.
I would be happy to explain anything that you find fallacious or off-point.
You might find this interesting. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is false. You have twisted your perspective, if you think blocking a malicious contributor (read their comments above, and look at their contributions) who clearly is not interested in being descriptive about the errors, instead, on pushing their anti-dictionary POV - will make Wiktionary die on the vine, then I don't know how to educate you. The user was not trying to fill holes, descriptively, they were trying to intentionally insert errors. For you (et al.) to be feeding them, due to your dislike of me, is reprehensible. --Connel MacKenzie 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is false? I have read the "contributions". I have never understood how you can make so many inferences about people's intentions based on the scarce information that you have about them. To me much user behavior is consistent with teen-ager/young-adult limit-testing (in turn due to incomplete myelinization). Furthermore, the usual anti-authority tendency among youths will lead to their increasingly hostile reaction to any hostility they might perceive toward our censorious handling of their "contributions". Sure, the clever limit-testers may make use chase our tails for a while. There are many aspects of how Wiktionary is going that strike me as poor social engineering that is also inconsistent with the characteristics of an open wiki. We are fighting too many of the wrong battles, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is false. Specifically, your statement that I'm against all new contributors. Specifically the non sequitur that limiting false information somehow restricts overall growth. You apparently did not read their comments or contributions (here and elsewhere in talk namespaces) that do make it clear it is more than (as you call it) "limit-testing." The only inference I made about them, is based on their actions and comments here, on-wiki. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this seriously how people treat each other on Wiktionary? Do administrators (or in this case, just one) seriously make outright personal attacks with no way for their adminship to be removed...ever? Wow...I'm shocked. This would never stand on Wikipedia, perhaps I should just keep my contributions over there. Teh Rote 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for adminship to be removed, but the community consensus is that the admin in question does more good than harm. I can't account for said consensus, but them's the facts. I do hope you'll stick around and contribute in spite of him, but if you don't, you certainly won't be the first editor to leave on his account. :-/ —RuakhTALK 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few points he keeps up bringing. First of all, he claims that I am a "known bad contributor". How am I "known" for "bad" contributions? Is there anyone on the entire site other than him that considers me to be a "bad" contributor?
In addition, he claims that I have an "anti-dictionary POV" and that I am "illiterate". Again, examples are needed. If you are referring to my contributions at goddessship, here's the problem: You claim it is a rule, but provide no citations for that claim. I can't just believe you and take every edit on faith- that's just not right.
Concomitantly, he claims that my comments above are "taunting". That's seeing insults in your soup. There were no insults thrown, until he called me illiterate on the first comment he made.
I request that Connel MacKenzie's contributions be reviewed by another administrator and see if he still fits the bill, because I don't think anyone who makes outright personal attacks has the right to such privledges. Shouldn't people who make personal attacks and abuse sysop prevledges be warned (Lou Crazy) and then banned for a repeat offense? That's what would make the most sense. Teh Rote 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's what would make the most sense, yes, but it's not going to happen, so IMHO there's not much point worrying about it. (BTW, to be honest, I have to admit that I haven't been happy with all of your edits either; in particular, your addition of a "trivia" section to goddessship didn't strike me as appropriate. Even Wikipedia now disprefers those, and Wikipedia's generally more foot-loose than we are.) —RuakhTALK 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking him personally? I think not. There are numerous unfounded personal attacks against me here, but against "teh" there are only descriptions of his inappropriate actions - his purpose for being here is anti-dictionary. Perhaps here just to troll, after all. As further evidence, all the specious items s/he listed, as well as all comments s/he made here. Looking at the timing of the bait comments s/he made here, I'd say the account was made to test the troll-friendly waters of Wiktionary, moreso than immediately creating bad entries. --Connel MacKenzie 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Connel wrote: "There are numerous unfounded personal attacks against me here, but against "teh" there are only descriptions of his inappropriate actions - his purpose for being here is anti-dictionary." (emphasis in original) I am not commenting either way about personal attacks against you Connel (imho whether personal attacks, by or against anyone, are unfounded or not is irrelevant), but in the section of your most recent edit that I have quoted, you state that there are no personal attacks against Teh Rote, and then immediately make an unsubstantiated argument at hominem against him when you say that "his purpose here is anti-dictionary". He is not the best contributor to Wiktionary (and I should state that I know that I am not the best either and do not claim to be) but from my reading of his contributions, (and by implication from their comments above, the reading of everyone else who has contributed to this thread bar yourself Connel) I can find no evidence to support your ad hominem allegations of Teh Rote's purpose in editing here is anti-Wiktionary, let alone anti-dictionary. Although he has not on every occasion goen about it in the best possible way, I believe his intentions as a contributor are to further the goals of the project. Connel, I find your comment offensive and as such I ask you to withdraw your accusation. Your behaviour in this matter has, in my opinion, been most unbecoming of an editor, much less an administrator. I am particularly saddened that this is not the only occasion when fellow administrators have felt it necessary to distance themselves from you.Thryduulf 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not subdivide this any further than it already is. Building a free dictionary, is a rebellious endeavor. Redefining English, asserting the exceptions to rules therefore abolish rules is nonsense, yet is what is continuously being asserted above (particularly in the previous sub-thread.) To say that that alone is anti-dictionary is an understatement; but all of his contributions I've looked at had similar intentional errors. To wear blinders, for the sake of saying that my handling of it is not perfect, is quite insane. --Connel MacKenzie 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from Wiktionary:No personal attacks: "Accusatory comments...can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly".

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Upon repeatedly asserting comments such as "Your third-grade teacher is to be reprimended for not correcting your illiteracy", "he/she has no good intentions here", "such an illiterate person", "this is someone up to their old tricks", "a known-bad contributor", "a specific agenda of inserting errors (only) into Wiktionary", "a malicious contributor...who clearly is not interested in being descriptive about their errors...pushing their anti-dictionary POV", and everything that User:Thryduulf pointed out. I may not be an administrator, but I know this: If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked and de-sysoped from Wiktionary. Teh Rote 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teh Rote. This has been discussed extensively before, see WT:BPA and WT:VOTE/ the outcome you would like seems very unlikely. Yes I think that Connel has acted unfairly towards you, however I also think that posting messages like this is simply trolling and asking for trouble. Connel cannot go too far on his own, as has been shown by the other administrators repeatedly undoing his actions. Please do not troll or provoke him, if you continue you will be blocked for incivility. Conrad.Irwin 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right in this case, I was letting him get to me. I'll stop posting here for a while and calm down. Teh Rote 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are not accusations. --Connel MacKenzie 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I look forward to very soon reading the unambiguous sources and examples that support your postulation. If what you characterise as facts and others have taken to be accusations are as you claim then they should be easily demonstrable. (ps: I've restored the section break as the most recent version of Firefox 2 for Linux has trouble editing long sections, as lag between typing and the text appearing increases with section length. Unbroken, this section is getting noticeably slow.) Thryduulf 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JA formating[edit]

I'm not sure why you changed what I'd done on 安心. I believe I've followed WT:AJA as closely as possible.--Hikui87 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connel, are you aware that in CJKV languages, a particular alternative form usually applies only to certain senses, rather than to all of them? In these cases, we've placed Alternative forms within the appropriate POS section.
Hikui, are you aware that the {{see}} template can only be used at the top of the page, ahead of all language sections? --EncycloPetey 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no I missed that. The number of equal signs on "alt forms" was unbalanced, so I put it where I thought it made sense/where it was intended. --Connel MacKenzie 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not. If so then WT:AJA#Verb_forms_of_nouns and WT:AJA#Quasi-adjectives need to be changed.--Hikui87 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be worth raisng as an issue on that guide's discussion page. --EncycloPetey 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blockage of User:Thryduulf[edit]

You stated in your summary that he had supposedly "vandalized" your talk page. I don't see what he did wrong. Can you point out how his edits were vandalism, please? Teh Rote 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PREFS on[edit]

Howdy, I tend to use the secure server when editing the wikimedia projects. I also like to use popups. It seems that WT:PREFS does not work from the secure server, sample. I setup my cookie on the regular server,, and switched its domain and path to the secure server, but it does not appear to have done anything.

Could you see if it is easy to fix? I think if you use the javascript variables (like wgScriptPath and such) instead of hard coded urls, then there is no trouble. w:en:User:Lupin's popups definitely works on the secure server for en.wikipedia. JackSchmidt 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little hard for me to test, but I think one just needs to edit MediaWiki:Common.js, the importScript function, and change:
This will at least avoid marking your javascript as untrusted/external. JackSchmidt 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it in a similar way. Yours Conrad.Irwin 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It works in FF2, but not in safari. However, the problem appears unrelated (it is a permissions problem changing the innerHTML of the head element, but is not triggered on I'll try to track down exactly what is wrong, since it is probably obscure. Thanks for fixing the JS and the wikilinks too! JackSchmidt 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Conrad. The original intent was to keep the English Wiktionary-specific stuff on the English Wiktionary, but it has grown rather significantly in its functionality, over time. --Connel MacKenzie 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, innerHTML is unreliable - any place I've used it should probably be fixed. --Connel MacKenzie 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, We've no CheckUsers![edit]

Copied from User talk:Dmcdevit, FYA

Hi Dmc, long time no IRC?! I was wondering if you could do me a favour. User:Anthurium claims to be Wonderfool and Willy on Wheels (though I doubt the claim), however I feel it would be prudent to run a check-user on the account and see if there are any socks lurking in the background - as that is the standard modus operandi of WF. Also, with Connel, TheDave and you all predominantly afk - the checkuser situation is fairly dire, any ideas what we should do about it? Conrad.Irwin 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Conrad.Irwin 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WT:CU if you have a moment. Conrad.Irwin 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ttbc-top etc[edit]

I finally got around to putting in the rules to change {ttbc-[top,mid,bottom]} to checktrans-. I'm going to change {ttbc-top} so it will always add to the AF cat, and they will be immediately fixed. At least one person is still adding them, so this will be good. Robert Ullmann 12:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been recently adding glossaries in Transwiki: namespace to Category:Glossaries, for instance Transwiki:Glossary of legal terms in technology. Only today have I noticed that the very same articles have been removed from that category by User:Connel MacKenzieBot in February 2007. Do you still think these articles should not be in Category:Glossaries? What articles do you think should be in Category:Glossaries, if any? My reasoning was that if non-glossary transwiki entries are put into their respective categories, so could glossaries in transwiki namespace be assigned to Category:Glossaries, even if they still need some work. --Daniel Polansky 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember the specific details of a momentary bot-run a year and a half, ago. All glossaries were shunted to the Appendix namespace, last I heard. Which makes some sense, as no dictionary I know of, has a glossary. Such transwiki entries I imagine are still put only in the Appendix namespace. If not, then someone probably just got a little off track, thinking of this dictionary as an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countability of lulz[edit]

Posting here since you locked the discussion page: lulz is glossed "uncountable", but one of the citations has "get a few lulz". 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted. Re-entered without evidence, re-deleted. Re-entered, re-deleted, protected. Now entered with citations incorrectly by User:Ptcamn and moved incorrectly by Atelaes, so perhaps this should be forwarded to him, to clean up. --Connel MacKenzie 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If the word

offends you as a Christian, then say so; we all get offended sometimes, and that makes us human. (That doesn't make your statements at [[Jesuses]] correct, but it makes them understandable, and perhaps you can help craft an accurate context tag and/or usage note.) But it's hard for me to imagine that a Christian would actually be offended by that word, rather than potentially by what was being said with it; and I therefore suspect you're just theorizing (without evidence) that this word must offend Christians, and therefore that that must be its intent, and going over-the-top with it because you've decided somehow that (1) I had something to do with this entry (as it happens, I hadn't touched it) and (2) that I'm your "adversary". If that's the case, then you need to learn to think, and seek evidence, before you make ridiculous claims that you don't know how to back down from. —RuakhTALK 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruakh, this edit was made by you. So, you are mistaken in saying you didn't touch the article. --EncycloPetey 01:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloPetey, you misread what I wrote. I wrote, and I quote: "I hadn't touched it". Not "I didn't touch it", nor "I haven't touched it", but rather "I hadn't touched it". Connel's edits took place before mine. —RuakhTALK 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruakh, I know you often (whenever you get the chance, it seems) engage in wheel warring, especially if it has anything to do with me. Are you adversarial? Duh. Do you remove any comments you don't like, willy-nilly? Of course you do - doesn't matter whether it is a vote page, discussion page, or content page. You comments and position on the Jesuses entry predates your most recent edit to it, by far - at least as far as May. It is disingenuous to suggest yours is a neutral position, especially when your more recent action is to censor a relevant, meaningful warning about a tricky English term - presumably because you don't like the wording? More and more, I am disgusted by your actions here on Wiktionary. You seem to be fostering a troll-friendly environment only when I am an immediate target. I must warn you, that will turn on you, before you expect it. Your profound efforts to trip up automation efforts by adding needless complication, is also not appreciated. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Connel, let me reply point by point.
Re: "I know you often [] engage in wheel warring [] with me": This is somewhat true, but of course, the reverse is true as well. (It takes two to wheel-war, and I believe I'm much more willing to accept compromise than you are.)
Re: "Are you adversarial? Duh.": Same.
Re: "Do you remove any comments you don't like, willy-nilly? Of course you do - doesn't matter whether it is a vote page, discussion page, or content page.": That's not true. I do remove personal attacks sometimes, but I always note when I do. (I'm actually undecided on this practice — in some cases I worry the note makes the comment seem worse than it was — but overall I think it does more help than harm.)
Re: "You comments and position on the Jesuses entry predates your most recent edit to it, by far - at least as far as May. It is disingenuous to suggest yours is a neutral position [] ": To be clear, I'm neutral about keeping or deleting the entry; but I'm not neutral about what the entry should say if it does exist. I'm not being disingenuous, and I don't know why you'd think I am.
Re: " [] a relevant, meaningful warning about a tricky English term - presumably because you don't like the wording?": Relevant, meaningful, and as far as I can discern, completely false. The over-the-top wording was a problem, too, but even "This term is ungrammatical, and offensive to Christians" would be unacceptable (without references or other evidence), because it's unsupported.
Re: "More and more, I am disgusted by your actions here on Wiktionary.": Quite frankly, your emotions rarely seem to correspond to reality, so I can't say that this bothers me very much. Obviously I wish that we had each other's respect and got along better, and if I knew how to bring that about I'd do what I could, but as it is, I'm not losing sleep.
Re: "You seem to be fostering a troll-friendly environment only when I am an immediate target.": This is also something I worry about. I think you're way too block-happy; sometimes you seem to be proven right in that the blockee becomes a vandal or troll, but I always wonder if they would have, had you not antagonized them. I'm never sure how I should handle such situations; generally I prefer to unblock the blockee and keep an eye on them, but then if I misjudge, I feel like I enabled their subsequent misbehavior. I imagine this is something you and I will never see eye-to-eye on.
Re: "I must warn you, that will turn on you, before you expect it.": I don't understand this warning, sorry. If you're saying that a troll-friendly environment is bad for the community as a whole, not just the targets of trolls, then I certainly agree. (That's actually the reason I remove personal attacks.)
Re: "Your profound efforts to trip up automation efforts by adding needless complication, is also not appreciated.": I certainly have no intention of tripping up automation efforts. "Needless" and "complication" are both subjective. If you could give a specific example, that might help clarify what you mean, unless what you mean is that you're back on the topic of entries for Hebrew roots.
RuakhTALK 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've never compromised - you've only continued wheel warring, with no one besides me even noticing, evidently. Since you've gotten away with it, you are obviously feeling bolder each time. Brilliant.
Your style of selective comment removal is beyond over-the-top - comments that only you think are about you personally (which in fact, clearly berate your actions, not you) removed by you yourself? You think no one is watching at all? Well, in that perhaps you are right.
About that individual entry - yes, you are lying for no apparent reason I can tell, except that it coincided time-wise with Connels. Do you not even read the sections you remove then block-quote? If you think that is some theory of mine you are sadly mistaken - but I know you can't pass the opportunity to make a personal attack, so you just insinuate some nonsense and your posse backs you up. Nice.
I don't quite see how you personally have gotten so far off track. The purpose of a dictionary is to explain words to people - essentially by each spelling. Your campaign to eliminate all usage notes is profoundly inexplicable. That is what a dictionary is for, that was several years of refinement of best practices - censured 100% by Ruakh after-the-fact? If someone adds a usage notes section, it is one thing to refine it. But it is a Doremitzwr-reminiscent style troll to remove it. (Note: that is not a personal attack - that is EXACTLY the action he took to spark numerous troll threads...history that your remember clearly, I'm sure.) Likewise, your apparent opposition to any meaningful tags. The purpose of a dictionary is not to provide people with a place to enter probable-copyright-violating Hebrew technical details.
I don't wish we could respect each other. I recognize that impossibility. I do wish others here would recognize your troll actions, your troll accusations, your one-sided comment removals, your flagrant content removal, your bizarre anti-technical approach to every technical solution (such as definition-line qualifier tags.)
You pander to every troll you see. How that isn't troll-friendly, you don't see? But you still spam links to that slander site, right? Oh, I know - why don't you call me a troll again - such fun!
Your selective comment removal has always been bad for the community.
Hebrew roots indeed. But no, that wasn't how you pulled my chain this time. Subst-ing definition-line qualifiers, embedding HTML in wikitext, pushing for permission to include bad Unicode titles previously rejected, slipping in characters outside the previous accepted code set in Eddittools. Dude, you are anti-technology on a hundred different fronts. Each little exception that you made without asking (or despite an answer you got!) has broken something downstream. But you dance happily in your ignorance, because you don't know or care which 'downstream something' got thwacked.
Hey - beautiful continued troll on my talk page. Kudos to you, too - not just your friend. --Connel MacKenzie 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: never having compromised: I think I have; but then, obviously I'm not the best person to judge.
Re: removal of comments: Fine, I'll stop, since clearly it drives you nuts. (For the record, (1) you've also removed comments before, and (2) I've also removed comments that were attacking you; but I can't deny that I've removed comments more often than you have, and that they've often been yours.)
Re: [[Jesuses]]: I'm not lying, and I've given you no reason to think I am. If you think I'm lying, that's your problem, and I'm not going to let you bully me over it.
Re: [[Connels]]: In retrospect, I should have deleted this entry, because I can't blame you for being bothered by it. (I might similarly have flipped out if someone created entries about my name — it could easily come off as creepy/stalkerish.) It is a valid entry, but obviously there are plenty of valid entries we don't have yet, and there was no reason for this one to be added in particular.
Re: usage notes and tags: To the contrary, I think usage notes and tags are wonderful, when accurate. Clearly you and I don't see eye-to-eye on what "accurate" means: I think it has something to do with the real world, and you seemingly do not. (For example, I remember when we were discussing [[Aryan]], and it turned out that you were partly right — does sometimes refer to white-supremacists — but you found yourself unable to convince people, and eventually turned to evidence-gathering as a very last resort. Like, “when all else fails, consult reality”.)
Re: probable-copyright-violating Hebrew technical details: I don't know what you're talking about, unless you're talking about Hebrew roots, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.
Re: recognizing me as a troll: Funny, it's my vain hope that someday people will recognize you as one. (Insofar as "troll" means "one whose goal is to drive away contributing members of the community", you're definitely #1.)
Re: "You pander to every troll you see. How that isn't troll-friendly, you don't see? But you still spam links to that slander site, right? Oh, I know - why don't you call me a troll again - such fun!": Feel free to rewrite this paragraph so it makes sense.
Re: subst-int definition-line qualifiers: I don't think I've ever done that. Link, please?
Re: embedding HTML in wikitext: The only thing I can think of is &eacute; and so on. Like all formatting concerns, that's something bots should fix — and until they do, I don't worry about it too much. When there are a bunch in an entry, I'll go through and fix them, but when there's just one or two, I don't think it's a big deal. (If you do, please explain why.)
Re: bad Unicode titles previously rejected: You mean, how I think there should be entries for Unicode characters?
Re: slipping in characters to Edittools: I don't know what you're talking about. What character have you objected to, and why haven't you expressed your objection before?
Re: etc., etc., etc.: etc., etc., etc.
RuakhTALK 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I've paid some attention to my editing patterns since this discussion, and I guess you're right that I use a fair bit of HTML-style markup in entries (as opposed to MediaWiki-specific markup, or to markup that's factored out into templates). Obviously you've no business concluding that I'm “anti-technical”, but if you could explain what it is “downstream” that could possibly be harmed by that, that would obviously change things. —RuakhTALK 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny, that a troll like you should bring up Aryan again. Your insanity is pretty extraordinary, but your accusations that I turned to evidence as a "last resort" are so far fetched, I have trouble deciding where to start. It was at that time that you confessed to having created an internet persona, spending months establishing your new moniker on internet forums before attacking Wiktionary. You then came here and in total opposition to what the word actually means in GenAm, asserted the obsolete historic meaning for that entry. At the same time, the entry on Wikipedia was under similar attack. A troll there pointed to the defaced Wiktionary entry as evidence, which started my review of it. The entry we had at the time did not pass the laugh test - so obviously completely wrong that one cannot help but laugh..."Dear Lord! Someone tried to pass this off as legit?"
It is true, that from that point forward, I have doubted you every time you have suggested you are American. Sorry, but such an assertion is too far fetched to believe. That is like a politician's lie: so absurd, so ridiculous, so brazen, so far fetched one finds it hard to do more than chuckle. Likewise your linking to that wiki-hate (slander) site. Why did you do that? Duh. You have an agenda for stuffing copyright violations (Hebrew dictionary?) here, so you have to attack anyone good at flushing them out.
Now, are you a troll? Of course. Have you driven away good contributors besides me? Of course. Have you helped other trolls hurt Wiktionary at a technical level? Of course. What, right after the conclusion of the Doremitzwr blow-up about unacceptable characters that made MediaWiki 4.x and 5.x choke, you went ahead and stuffed those same characters not into entries but into Edittools itself! Keeping in mind that all secondary tools are (at best, by definition) one version behind (but usually many) it is absurd to think that such additions might be helpful.
Your userpage now claims you have a degree in computer science. I feel sorry for that university, if you genuinely did buy a degree from them. But I doubt that too, as your ignorance of technical issues is sometimes baffling. And I am not convinced you actually do live, or ever have lived, in America.
Back to matters at hand: stop wheel warring. Stop feeding trolls. Stop unblocking trolls and vandals. Please stop, or my opinion of you will somehow be lower. And please stop being a moron...Jesus is listed in CMOS as a specific example. Yes, of course you are wrong. And no, of course it is not something I made up.
--Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize.[edit]

Connel, I owe you an apology. I won't say what for, but there, it's out there. I apologize. bd2412 T 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CopyToWiktionaryBot broken?[edit]

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot hasn't edited since the start of May. Just thought you might like to know. --Closedmouth 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You protected this page from creation giving the reason "bad entry title". I don't see how that works. It's obviously not a technical restriction, as only [, ], {, }, |, <, and > are disallowed. If it's due to the spelling, f--k is entered, why not this one? --Teh Rote 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent troll, again. Who elected you god, that you can now time-travel, specifying what is or isn't an allowed character? Why would you presume? Oh, because this is another troll. "*" isn't a wildcard in your world? Even if there is a way it can be created, doing so causes considerable problems with secondary pages, external tools and internal tools. But most of all, it boots nothing to make such an exception - that's why it was rejected each time here. But Kudos for another excellent troll - love the wording "...obviously not <obvious reason>..." - such a classic troll formula. Dude, you should publish a troll guide. Stay the fuck off my talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Connel, he's quite right: That entry can be created (as evidenced by the fact that it was), and there's no technical restriction blocking asterisks (as evidenced by, well, the fact that the entry can be entered). I believe there's an unwritten policy against asterisks; if so, say that, rather than jumping to unjustified accusations and hyperbole. Better yet, start a WT:VOTE and turn it into a written policy. But you're an administrator, and if you're not capable of feigning calmness in your interactions with relative newcomers, then you've no business interacting with them at all. —RuakhTALK 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CM: I think you've erred. He is like any contributor. He has attempted to find out policy and found our stated policy, such as it is. Since we are supposed to be run by explicit policies, I don't see what he has done wrong. If you do not reply quickly, I will unblock him. If unblocking is a mistake, then I will be happy to block him. It is not unreasonable for someone to ask a question on your talk page. If you find it unreasonable, you should get someone else to carry your water. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked Teh Rote and his IP address. Please let me know if there is more to this instance than is visible under this heading. DCDuring TALK 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teh Rote has been warned three times not to edit this page, at least twice with the threat of blocking. While taken on its own the block is totally unwarranted, in the circumstances Teh Rote is at fault (this time). Conrad.Irwin 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is his recourse when he trying to complain about an arbitrary decision (not clearly connected to an explicit policy AFAICT)? In normal practice I would expect a senior admin to be able to articulate his views and convince most newbies of the error of their ways without resorting to extreme measures. How a user is supposed to know that it is important to exclude certain typography not explicitly mentioned in any policy is beyond me. For the punishment for asking about it to be blocking is beyond me.
I wonder who is really the troll in this case. The principal difference I see is that one person has "power" at Wiktionary and the other does not. I am aware of the repeat nature of these confrontations between Teh Rote and CM, but was unaware of three "warnings", not that we have a policy on "warnings" and the consequences of their violation. Hasn't CM been "warned" three times at least? I will not interfere should a block be re-imposed, but certainly not because I agree with it.
I had requested that Teh Rote avoid any contact with CM on these pages, not a "warning", not even a reasonable request, but as advice. It is a shame that this kind of thing recurs so frequently and that it has not been corrected. It is not healthy for Wiktionary. A small part of the problem is that there really aren't enough explicit help pages, guidelines (preferred), and policies (sometimes necessary) to refer newbies to when their actions are destructive or admins to when their behavior is over the top. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: after discussion at the Grease pit where it became clear that most editors do not object to asterisks in page titles (including yourself, seemingly, as it's you who created [[*nix]]), I went ahead and unprotected the entry, and created a first draft. Please feel free to RFD and/or RFV it, etc., but please don't delete it without further discussion. Thanks! —RuakhTALK 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you knowingly restored an entry you have been informed causes technical problems. You are a vandal and nothing more. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Informed" is kind of a strong word. You made a bullshit claim with low information content and high invective content, were called out on it, and disappeared. You are a troll with dictatorial aspirations, and nothing more. —RuakhTALK 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Person one: "Hey, this causes a problem. Don't do it."
Person two: "Awww, bullshit. I'm doing it anyway."
Dear person two (Ruakh): you are a troll. The worst kind, from what I can tell. --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn’t the technical issue be resolved by housing the entry at:

Or maybe by substituting another similar symbol which would not cause technical problems with “wildcard” searches or whatever? I hope this helps…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting approach. However, changing character sets is rarely advisable, not at all within a single word. I think that would do absolutely nothing to help searches, but might further confound other tools. --Connel MacKenzie 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I’m totally clueless when it comes to such things; this just seemed like a logical solution that might have worked…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Connel, I've noticed that a lot of users are entering plurals by hand, is there any chance that TheCheatBot (or indeed any of it's companions) can be run? It's not absolutely necessary, as we'll get there eventually anyway, but it'd be great! Conrad.Irwin 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've written it, no. Not without a successful XML dump. Still waiting on that. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To vacillate[edit]

I was wondering whether duabus sellis sedeo could be translated as vacillate? --BiT 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not think of that as a very good translation, offhand. That proverb seems to be describing a turncoat or double agent, not someone indecisive. --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We've got a backlog of automated tranwiki requests since the bot hasn't been running recently. Do you think you could run it when you get the chance? w:Category:Copy to Wiktionary is pretty full. If you want to reply, please do so at w:User talk:Lifebaka or by email. Thanks. w:User:Lifebaka Lifebaka 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Hello Connel,
could you update the broken form link in User:Connel MacKenzie/spellcheck.js from to --- Best regards, Melancholie 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. So sorry. Yes, of course. --Connel MacKenzie 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Category:Pronunciations wildly different across the pond[edit]

As you created Category:Pronunciations wildly different accross the pond, you will probably be interested in the Beer Parlour discussion I have just started about it. See Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Category:Pronunciations wildly different across the pond. Thryduulf 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to update the stats yet? I know Robert was bemoaning the fact that an XML dump hasn't happened in a while, but some of the stats haven't been updated since March. Is there a more recent dump than that? --EncycloPetey 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There really hasn't been a successful XML dump since then. --Connel MacKenzie 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where would be the best place to gripe (so that something might happen)? No XML dump since March is ridiculous. --EncycloPetey 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew... well, perhaps w:User talk:Brion VIBBER. He may know who it has been passed down to, anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert tells me there was an XML dump on 13 June. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Connel, any chance on having an update for /Gutenberg frequency list? --Pourquoipas 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


IW vandal[edit]

If you want to block him: just see the things that did on He is the "grawp vandal". Greetings from Rome, --RoyFocker 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)