The pages you have created for "color" (Latin, variant spellings) are not the way that these things are done in Wiktionary. I'll move your Latin content to the page for "color". The "color colour" page will be deleted, as nothing will link to there. — Paul G 16:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Eean - if you have not already, please stop making these edits to the pages linking to "color"/"colour" as this policy has not been agreed. It would be better to discuss this in the beer parlour before going any further. Thanks. — Paul G 16:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are you making vain pages? — 18.104.22.168 07:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stubborn!? You are.—22.214.171.124 08:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on my Discussion page,I have tried to apply them-- MrSmart
Adverbs in wiktionary
Hello, I've found you in 'recent changes' and want to ask a couple of questions, for I don't have time to leaf through the rules of wiktionary; What do we have to do about adverbs? Do we create a separate article for each adverb or we had better incorporate all related words into one article with the same root and then for every related word make a redirectional page? Thanks for your attention. Is there an irc channel for this purpose [relegation of difficult questions to someone for an immediate answer]? --Dennis Valeev 14:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm good at the following pronunciation guide: simultaneously [`sImul'teyneeuslee]. Do we use it in wiktionary? I always look quite confusely at all these Sampa and other international things. When I merely want to point out how to pronounce this or that English word I don't actually need to know what sounds and other means of communication some african tribe use in their conventional speech, am I right? Surely do I have to use something different when I want to write a pronunciation guide for a Russian word, for there's a lot of absolutely different sounds used and no way to produce them using English sound system. Thanks. You're very helpful! --Dennis Valeev 09:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You wrote: I don't understand why you are converting links to the English Wiki of foreign words and replacing them with links to the foreign-language wikis.
I don't do it more, it was misunderstanding. I agree that better to reference foreign words as entries in English Wiki.
wikigs 22 Nov 2004
Jesus Christ. Words that are used in everyday conversation and play a significant part in today's modern society don't necessarily have to appear in Google to be present, relevant and correct. The OED adds a number of words each year, some derived from 'slang' terminology and some are new, previously fictional words that have become popular or required to describe specific advancements in how we live.
Do you object to every new word or term because you think its wrong. Who derived the term 'moblog' for you to deem an acceptable word - and why would 'mophoto' be more gracious than 'phontography'? And more importantly, who are you to decide this? -- Coxy
- I like Coxy's last point, since its why I don't think pretend words have any place in the Wiktionary. --Eean 23:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In My Own Back Yard!
Noticed you're from Columbia, Missouri - I'm from Jeff City, just thought I'd say hello. :o) Tonners62 17:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cleaning up sucks
I simply tried to get the rfd page cleaned up somewhat. I'm sorry I managed to get overzealous.
This was on rfd:
*you suck See my reasoning the discussion page, but also consider what others have said there about this page. — Paul G 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) *you suck See my reasoning the discussion page, but also consider what others have said there about this page. — Paul G 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
** As I say in the discussion page, I'm fine with deleting it. -dmh 06:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) ** As I say in the discussion page, I'm fine with deleting it. -dmh 06:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) - *** I suggested making it translation only on the talk page. --Eean 10:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I didn't do my job entirely right; the talk page still exists:
Talk:You_suck You are right, I should have read it. I tried to get the entry back, but I failed. I did have second thoughts on this page, but I got carried away apparently and deleted anyway. If we really want it back, I'm sure I can still fish it out of a MySQL dump. Let me know.
Maybe I'll suck a bit less then. slurrrrrrrrp Polyglot 19:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do like the idea of a phrase book as well and I don't see why it couldn't be part of the Wiktionary project(s) itself. Especially now with the possibility to assign categories. In fact I started the first phrase book entries several months ago. It didn't exactly take off back then. (see: What's your name? or phrase book) I do think it should be filled with less controversial phrases first, though. Again, I want to apologize for deleting the You_suck page and if it needs to be brought back, I'll try to find it in the dumps. Just let me know. Kind regards Polyglot 08:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Eean, I found how to restore a page. Can you please look at it and see whether everything is OK with it. The rfd template is still on there. I suggest you take it off. The discussion that was on the rfd page is now on its talk page. Polyglot 23:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why have you blanked "enjoyment" and several other pages? They look all right to me. Are they copyvios? Blanking entries is generally not a good idea - better to report them somewhere for others to look at. — Paul G 10:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a comment to your remark on "Malik al-Nasir" on the requests for deletion page that you might find useful. — Paul G 12:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
re: Voting on Protologisms
Eean, you wrote:- :no, I believe its counter to what Wiktionary should be about. A seperate page for each pretend words implies its permanent. A page for all unproven words would be a good way of removing likely unproven words without having to be 100% sure (someone could come by later with a real world example and it could easily be re-added), but still allow the words to be cleaned out of Wiktionary after a longer period (like there could be a policy of removing words after they've been on the page for more then a year or so). --Eean 18:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can ask you to vote positively for one option, rather than against an option. I think you've voted for the first half of the combination of the above option !
Responding to your argument. Whether we move the word to a list, or we rename it with a prefix, the word still exists in Wiktionary. My only concern is which is easier to administer. Renaming wins hands down in my book, and using a template to give it a category so we can auto-generate the list. And there is less chance of having on an ngoing arguement about how a protologism has been condensed. Just leave it as it is, but quarantine it. Why would would you want to spend time on condensing/copying what is probably rubbish anyway. Why would you want to argue with someone who reckons it is a real word ? Just separate it out from the main content.--Richardb 09:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strangely enough, you earlier wrote :- If we do have a seperate namespace, it shouldn't be a "protologism" namespace, it should be more of a "unsure" namespace. That would seem pretty fair. We could in the future develop a bot to remove unsure entries that haven't been edited in years. I thought the proposal to have a name space UNPROVEN WORD pretty much met this idea. --Richardb 09:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) I don't think you'll win an argument to delete bullshit words. It takes ages to even get people to agree to delete vandalism !! This way we can get agreement fairly quickly I think.--Richardb 13:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Project to get basic words defined
The following people have contributed to the project so far. Can you help too ?
- dmh- enthusiastically running with it
- Eclecticology - This seems like a useful idea.
- The main reason I want to move BS words into its own page is because if its get its own namespace, that would probably mean the words would stick around indefinitely. Whereas cleaning up old BS words will be easy if their kept on a page. --Eean 17:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But I don't see how that makes it any easier. AS far as I can see, it makes it harder. You have to do work to condense the content, you have to fight battles because you condensed it wrongly etc. Whereas, to rename it is easy. without any risk of losing content which might be worthwhile. Easy also to rename it back again if you get it wrong. So, please explain how it makes it easier ?. If you label the words with a template/category, then it's easy to find all the words and delete them when/if we collectively decide they should be deleted.
- Plus, what really is the problem if they stick around, as long as they are clearly labelled as "UNPROVEN WORDS" ??--Richardb 05:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Eean, I'm not really strong on arguing about this. What I am strong on is trying to put some structure around the situation. What the problem is, what we can do about it, what the consensus is for a way forward. I've structured this into a sort of Project Page Wiktionary:beer parlour/protologisms. Can you please put forward your discussions, arguments etc there, rather than addressing stuff to me personally.--Richardb 07:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Eean. I see you've been doing some very minor edits such as just removing blank lines. Normally I wouldn't bother with edits this minor for a few reasons. Here's a few points to think about:
- Everybody has their own slightly different ideas about where to put blank lines, it's worth changing from one way to another.
- All edits make the database bigger even if they make the article smaller.
- If there are blank lines which interfere with the displayed article, you can remove them when you're doing actual changes to the content, other times don't worry about it.
- If you decide to do it anyway, at least mark such edits as minor so they don't clutter Recent changes.
Have a good New Year! — Hippietrail 05:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Please "annoying linefeeds" is just about the least acceptable reason for an edit. Wiktionary has no standard for where to put linefeeds. This means others are bound to have their own preferences and are just as likely to find your preferences annoying. The last thing we need is to people to be randomly changing trivial formatting back and forth just because each has his own favourite and his own pet annoyance. They just waste a little bandwidth and a clutter the edit history for no gain to anyone. — Hippietrail 13:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
--Wonderfool 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)So on RC, they have patrol things? And i gues this works where someone comes along checkin the changes made? And then the patrol tag is taken off? nice one
You never gave a reason for cleanup at enunciate. 126.96.36.199 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- wasn't needed, it was a mess when I tagged it. --Eean 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in OED. I still don't have one handy. Unfortunately, it seems that moving the sketchy material I put in to the talk page (where it does belong) had the unwanted side-effect of making the article look empty to Semper when he came trawling for garbage. Maybe there should be a template for "woodsman spare this tree, check the talk page first". -dmh 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Links to other language sections