User talk:Equinox

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

not the sharpest tool in the shed[edit]

How is that a noun? It's interchangeable with "not very smart" or "dim", and it's only used to modify nouns. If it were a noun, it would be synonymous with "stupidity", not "stupid". Because it's a phrase, it's not really comparable and doesn't really work except predicatively, but that doesn't make it a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The sharpest tool in the shed" is certainly an NP. The applicable sense of "not" appears to be the adverb. Applying an adverb to an NP gives you an NP (like "hungry dog" becoming "surprisingly hungry dog"). Equinox 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In your example, "surprisingly" is modifying "hungry", not "dog" (you can't say "*a surprisingly dog"). Likewise, "not" is modifying "the sharpest", not "tool". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Besides, this is really "not the sharpest" with "tool in the shed" tacked on in a way that doesn't diagram very well- that's part of the humor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, roll 'em back if I'm wrong. Not sure that I agree but I can't articulately analyse and argue it right now. Equinox 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that NOT(X) applies to all of X and I would like to see convincing proof otherwise. To take a really trivial example: if I say "Chuck Entz isn't a leopard in a zoo" then you would seem to be arguing that I'm saying you are in a zoo, merely not a leopard. Equinox 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really analogous, because "not the sharpest" assumes membership in a set in order to allow comparison with the rest of the set. In fact, I think the underlying form is really something like "not the sharpest [of the] tool[s] in the shed". I'm not completely convinced this is an adjective, either- it seems like a (stative) verb phrase with the verb missing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

so is life[edit]

um, I think you might have made a mistake on adding those quotes to the second sense. I was careful to weed out the "life is too" from among the apples Leasnam (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The 1894 & 2007 ones can be either or. We might be best to remove them if they are not clear... Leasnam (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel absolutely certain from context. Maybe ask further editors for opinions? Equinox 23:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm good on all but the 2007 one. It would need to read "and so can life (be fatal)" to make sense as "life can (be) too" Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If it has respected me so far, I don 't see why it would decide to consume me now, when all my body has to offer are weakened bones and sagging flesh. Malaria can be fatal in the long run, I know. Well, so is life.
I don't see why. What's grammatically wrong with something like: "chips can be tasty, but popcorn is, too, and it's cheaper"?
Also, a bit more context shows that the writer is being defeatist/fatalistic: "I don't even take antibiotics. It's part of the job. ... Malaria can be fatal in the long run, I know. Well, so is life. When I use repellent, it's only so I can avoid ... the stinging sensation ... Maybe I brought so many [cans] because I didn't know when I was going to return. ... When I die, they should put a can of it inside my coffin..."
So he doesn't care if he dies. Malaria is fatal; so is life; he will die anyway. If it meant "such is life", he'd be saying: "malaria can be fatal, but oh well, I won't let that bother me!" which doesn't jive with the rest. Equinox 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"named for", "named after", "from the name of"[edit]

Those searches, while they generate a lot of chaff, also find lots of things to categorize as eponyms. You may already know, since I see many are already categorized, although I've found and fixed a few that weren't. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a named-after template of some kind, don't we? That automatically adds the category. I have never used it because it's another new thing to learn, being a trickless old dog and all, but it seems the best approach. Equinox 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's {{named-after}}. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

See Also section for Planck unit[edit]

Why did you remove most of the entries in the See Also section for Planck units? Eli355 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Because they come from Planck, not Planck unit. Look at the edit history for my explanation. Equinox 18:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Could there be a section such as "derived units" or "related terms" of the Planck unit page? Eli355 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Since all these terms are already at Planck, which Planck unit already links to, I don't see the point in duplicating the list: it just makes more work for us to keep them synchronised. Equinox 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Hey Mineral Man. What was la,ce,pr,nd,sm, supposed to be on the murataite page? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a bot that picked stuff off MinDat and generated the definitions based on the chemical symbols in the formula (so if the formula was, say, H2OCl3, which I've just made up and probably isn't chemically valid, we would say "a mineral made of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine"). If you find errors, it means that there was a typo or weird formatting on MinDat. Equinox 02:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The definitions are terrible. I wish that you had asked someone before doing it, because MinDat has the data to make much better entries. (If you're interested in improving them by bot, though, I could help you with the definitional aspect.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see them as stubs, but for me it's better to have a stub entry that acknowledges "this is a word, and this is VAGUELY what it means" (i.e. it's a mineral, and not a cake, or a dog) than not to have an entry at all. I can see how that is arguable. I'm not a mineralogist and mainly went for it at the time because it seemed like a way to generate (basic) entries for a large number of missing words. So I have no further plans. If you have a specific strategy for improving the entries that can be easily automated (and of course doesn't go so far as to violate another site's copyright) then I might be able to slap it together. Equinox 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did take a mineralogy class, although I have to admit that I've forgotten a great deal of it. The single most important thing you can say about a mineral (besides stating that it's a mineral, of course) is its classification. Colour is deceptive and the elements in it are not very meaningful if you don't know the structure, but knowing the Strunz classification is a big deal. For murataite, the best ultra-stubby, automated def would be (IMO): A black oxide mineral. MinDat has a field for Strunz classification, and you can also get it from 'pedia (except for the fact that lots of minerals don't have an entry over there). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I took the existing stuff from MinDat (with some topical ignorance) and we may be in a position to improve on that. (BTW you will see that I always included them as a reference - not primarily because of my ignorance but because I think it's very rude to take someone's information, copyright or otherwise, without mentioning.) I think MinDat is the only place we are going to obtain mineral info en masse, but I am super-focused on my existing obscure word lists: can I be a bit rude and ask you to check it out and suggest how we can go through their entries and improve ours (without ripping them off too much)? As you are aware we need some kind of blanket algorithmic rule in order to do anything useful. Equinox 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm too inept to do the actual bot-work, or really figure out how exactly it ought to be done. Essentially, you should take the capitalised word in the Strunz classification field at MinDat, remove the final S and then make it lowercase, and insert it inside [[]] immediately before the word "mineral" in any entry you made that hasn't been substantially edited (those entries should be easy to find, as they will be members of both Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries and Category:en:Minerals (or Category:en:Mineralogy for the ones that haven't had their context label fixed yet by WF yet). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

The IP you banned is a problematic editor who has been block evading and mobile IP hopping for ages, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May#Possible IP range blocks required and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/June#...and that one editor is back. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 23:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I basically blocked them because you were reverting them. Afterwards I thought "that is not a good reason, and I don't speak Finnish", but I couldn't bear to think about it so I deliberately logged out and ran away, in case anyone came and cried to me about banning. Let's stop me being an admin, I'm fucking awful. I would miss the rollback button though, I bet I do about twice as much as any human being with a real life. Equinox 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Leasnam is better than I am[edit]

Leasnam wrote to me (I didn't check my email for two days, seriously, I tend to nuke a place and then ignore it and delete everything) and s/he said: "I just want to say I have no issues with you, and hope we can move forward to more fruitful things :) Can I please ask you please do me this one favour: If you see something that looks funny that I did, can you just let me know ? (and maybe not put me on blast publically for it...?). In most cases, I will immediately change/delete an entry if it's not right. I have no problems with that." Leasnam I hope you will not mind that I quote you because this is pretty fair stuff.

I wrote: "Hello. I was a bit of a jerk, wasn't I? I'll do it again because I have an alcohol problem and nobody can stop me editing Wiktionary drunk. I do apologise for being a dick, that kind of thing comes and goes. And I genuinely didn't open this e-mail message until now, when I dared to. Also even if you spent half your life writing be- and for- then you have been around a long time and done a lot of good work, and yes, I am the bad guy here. I am not gonna say "you must forgive me because of my MENTAL DISORDER" because I basically keep drinking and have no plans to stop. But I do definitely wake up and think "oh god, did I really say that" and you know, I don't hate you either, you're one of the good names that has been around forever (longer than me no doubt!) and I'm sorry if I hurt you. The "alternative forms being mysterious Anglo-Saxon possibilities" does get on my nerves but I don't have to be quite so horrible. I'm sorry Leasnam, I don't want you to think that we totally hate each other or whatever. Alo it's not fair to yell at you for stuff that you (sometimes) made before anyone complained about the Anglo-Saxonism. I'm a bad person and there are serious problems with my personality.

  • hugs* sorry that I suck, and thanks for being the bigger guy, as they say.

Equinox 22:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. I was curious about something. For our edification and amusement, would it be feasible for you to make an account (perhaps "Drunquinox", "Equischnapps", or "Inebrinox") and use that when you edit? Just a thought. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You didn't express that very well, but if (arguable!) you are suggesting that I should have separate accounts for drunk and sober Equinox: then no, because (i) drunkie would become my permanent account because I try never to be sober, AND additionally I would think that "anything I do with the NON-drunk account has got accountability attached to it" (lol). Also (ii) it seems somehow dirty. (And schnapps?!?) Equinox 23:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Take it as given that I never express anything particularly well. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favour. Might I recommend Alchinox, Equitoxicated, Vodakinox, or Ginandtonox. --Victar (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I had written an amusing response but EDIT CONFLICT. Victar is now my manager. Please send all queries about my behaviour to that guy. Equinox 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I quit. --Victar (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
So earlier I saw a whole bunch of idiots dressed up in fancy suits at about 8 p.m. and I said "did you not get a chance to go home after work, OR are you the mafia". Secretly wanting to wear the concrete boots. Turned out that it was the stupid Ascot horse races (famous for people dressing up, especially women wearing silly hats). Anyway. Victar do you want to snuggle. Equinox 01:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)