User talk:Koavf

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

Welcome[edit]

Koavf, Welcome. We are glad to have whatever portion of your time you choose to devote to Wiktionary. I am including some standard welcome text below because it has some good help. If you're already familiar with the Wiki markup, please do read our article formatting guidelines at the least. I will say, you will find that Wiktionary is a smaller community where your contributions will make a bigger relative impact. --Dvortygirl 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Redirects.[edit]

Hi,

FYI, I deleted r.e.m., as we don't do that here.

RuakhTALK 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

bipolar disorder[edit]

Please don't do that. We deliberately do not link the names of common langugaes. Even if you link them, a bot would revert you shortly, since the Translation format is maintained by a bot. --EncycloPetey 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

breaking bad[edit]

The main problem with this entry is the citation page. Citations have to be actual usages, not just mentions. Both of your cites merely mention the term, but do not actually use it. You should find some cites where it is used, in the wild, so to speak. A good place to find citations is books.google.com. —Stephen (Talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: move to Commons[edit]

Have you checked that these have all been imported to Commons? I suggested deleting all the files here once and nobody supported it, so I didn't. But if they're on Commons then they can of course be deleted as redundant copies. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the ones you tagged, I've deleted the no-longer needed ones I uploaded, and moved the useful ones that had licences, and asked the uploader of one of the useful licenceless ones to fix it. Maro and I have removed the {{delete}} tags from a few that are just for unfinished debugging here. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Re "if they're on Commons then they can of course be deleted as redundant copies", not necessarily: Commons sometimes updates (or even deletes) files the other projects may want to keep as are.​—msh210 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

Hey, it looks like you restarted editing here on hitting a million edits at the pedia. Are you aiming for a million here, too? If so, you're most welcome, and best of luck. Note that tagging a page with {{rfd}} is necessary but insufficient for nominating it for deletion: you have to then click the "+" in the template that appears, which will cause you to be editing the RFD (or RFDO) page: there, supply a reason for the nomination. Tagged but not nominated pages will likely be detagged after the tagger has had a chance to nominate (though sometimes another editor will bring the nomination to RFD/RFDO himself if he knows of a reason to nominate it for deletion).​—msh210 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I should have linked: RFD is WT:RFD and RFDO is WT:RFDO.​—msh210 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Because you replied on my talkpage, I continued the discussion there. Fyi.​—msh210 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

{{delete}}[edit]

Sorry, but marking an image used in more than two dozen pages for imminent deletion without even giving a reason is not a great way to go about things. Please use WT:RFDO by applying the {{rfd}} template to the page and clicking the little + button, then typing in your reasoning and pressing 'Save'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay But the exact same image is on Commons and protected... —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but we generally like to discuss stuff like this rather than delete out of process. As of now, each image needs to be dealt with individually. If you want to make a vote about image policy around here, I'd be glad to help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Phrasebook entries at WT:RFD[edit]

Just so you know, idiomaticity has nothing to do with whether we keep these entries or not. They are Phrasebook entries, so instead we are judging them against the criteria at WT:PHRASE (such as "usefulness"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I guess I can't really judge how important these would be for a phrasebook. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Matt Groening[edit]

Hello. I declined your request for speedy deletion of this template [1] because the template is currently in use at WT:Appendix-only pages. I don't get why Daniel made separate templates for everything on that page, but he did anyway. —Internoob 05:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Internoob: Now it just has two redlinks. What is the value of this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well now that Daniel restored one of the pages, it has a blue link. I don't think it's worth it to orphan this page and delete it because now it is transcluded on two pages. So you can update both pages at once with a single edit. Might as well keep it around. —Internoob 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, red links are not considered as bad here as they are on Wikipedia. The idea is that they help us by showing what work still needs to get done. —Internoob 06:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Internoob: But why stop there? Should we create a redlink for w:Life in Hell? Redlinks definitely have value at Wikipedia as well. Plus, the appendix page would not be an orphan: it would be linked at Wiktionary:Appendix-only_pages and Wiktionary:Index to appendices. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You can add a red link for Life in Hell if you want to. I don't think anyone would object. There aren't really very many rules for what goes on in the Appendix namespace. If you really think that this template should be deleted, then bring it to WT:RFDO by adding {{rfd}} to the page. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion because it is being used and it at least has a purpose, even if that purpose is mundane. —Internoob 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding cats to categories with catboiler templates[edit]

In general, this is a bad idea. For one thing, such categories should already have all the categories they need supplied by the template (I just reverted an edit that did). More importantly, not using the template means that changes to the categorization code of the template won't apply uniformly to all the cats that use the templates, and renaming or deleting categories gets more complicated. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I am not opposed to using the templates--that's why I didn't remove them. The problem is simply sorting. Do you have a fix for that? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No, but if you ask at the Grease Pit, someone else might. The problem with your method is that sort keys should be generated by the templates/modules, so they can be done uniformly, and so they can be redone without redoing all of your edits one by one if consensus on sorting changes later. Why build a huge infrastructure out of paper clips and duct tape when you can flip a switch? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Beer parlour[edit]

I don't know what your timezone is, but Wiktionary operates in UTC. So could you please undo your post to the January BP page and either post it to the December page or wait till the UTC New Year. --WikiTiki89 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I was at work. Does it matter? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't really matter, but keep that in mind for next time. --WikiTiki89 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about template[edit]

Template:compactTOC-ase It seems like you made this and have a kind of alphabetical order for sign language gestures. Did you create this order arbitrarily or is it standardized somewhere and you adapted it here? If you respond on your talk, please use Template:ping so I'm notified. Thanks and happy new year! —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The order is arbitrary. The ASL phones (shapes/locations/motions that compose ASL phonemes) used in that transcription system are based on generally accepted ASL linguistics (which have evolved since Stokoe notation), but Unicode does not yet have code points for them, I'm not aware of any widely accepted sort order or latin-alphabet transliteration. The order in Template:compactTOC-ase is somewhat arbitrary and could be changed without contention. —Rod (A. Smith) 20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I take that back. It looks like there has been significant progress since I last researched this. w:SignWriting now has designated Unicode code points. We may want to base our transcription and/or sort order on SignWriting. —Rod (A. Smith) 20:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

your signature though[edit]

lol Equinox 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Time-honoured way to sight a Wikipedian, innit? I'd say mine is approaching the upper bounds of showiness for a classic Wiktionary sig. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, you little lexicoslut. Equinox 00:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox: It's maybe not as understated as yours but I've seen worse. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

? or ! used alone in Spanish -- attestable?[edit]

Do you think the ? or ! used alone in Spanish are likely to be attestable? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Certainly. I'd be surprised if there weren't some discussion of it from w:ASALE, in point of fact. I have read about it in... El Pais? in the past three years or so. If you want a citation, I can probably find one. I know it is very common in Catalan. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if you could provide a citation, I would appreciate it. I wonder if this would be too difficult, because Google ignores punctuation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Falas portugue^s e na~o espanhol? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Eu falo português, e não espanhol. Maybe if you talk to me in Spanish, hopefully I'll be able to understand it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: ?Has tratado leer espan~ol? Es muy ma's facil que ingles... —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Estou conseguindo ler em espanhol! Porém gosto de inglês também. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Pues, eu gosto tu idioma y espanhol y mi idioma tambe'm (y portuñol--una entrada en Wiktionary de mi!) ?No hay nada personas en Sa~o Paolo que falan espanhol? ?Cuantos personas falan ingles en tu ciudad? ?Espanhol no es comun? Creo que es ma's comun entra la frontera con Uruguay... Mein Deutsche nichte est guten... ?pero hay muchos personas que hablan alema'n en tu pais tambien, si'? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Você criou portuñol e eu criei portunhol! Normalmente apenas falo com outras pessoas em português. Eu conheço poucas pessoas que falam espanhol, inglês ou alemão. Eu aprendi inglês sozinho. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Por lo tanto, "ñ" es "nh" en tu lengua... el "ñ" es solo en español. Your English seems very fine to me. I would love to learn more of Portuguese and strengthen my Spanish. Let me know if I can help you in the future. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Let me know if I can help you with Portuguese. How come Spanish is easier than English, in your opinion? I just checked your user page and learned that you are a native English speaker. I am under the impression that English is easier than Portuguese or Spanish. One reason is: English uses some auxiliary verbs (will, have, had) for past/future/subjunctive/etc. instead of a gajillion of verb suffixes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Spanish is easier since you are a Lusophone and they are very closely related Romance languages--similarly, Galician would be easy for you. English is 1.) a Germanic language and 2.) has a huge vocabulary with all kinds of etymologies (including Latin). I'm happy to exchange languages with you--I would love to know more Portuguese. Definitely the hardest part of learning Portuguese/Spanish is verb conjugation but it's also a fairly logical system. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right: for a Portuguese speaker, learning Spanish is easier than learning English. It seems I can generally understand Spanish texts and speech just based on being a native Portuguese speaker, plus I learned a few Spanish grammar rules. I never tried to learn how to speak/write correctly in Spanish. It looks like a good idea. I'm happy to exchange languages with you, too. I've been slowly learning Japanese by myself as a third language since I was like 15 years old. (by your logic, that would not be a very sound choice: I started with a Romance language, then a Germanic language, and then a Japonic language with a completely different writing system!)
In my experience, it's normal here in Brazil to try to learn English as a second language by going to language schools, even though I learned English by myself. It is something that appears to make a difference in one's resume here. In my previous home, the number of language schools nearby (like Wizard, CCAA, CNA, etc.) was probably somewhere between 8 to 12.
It's normal to hear music in English and most movies you see on TV and movie theaters are from USA (though most people seem to prefer them dubbed in Portuguese; it's hard to find movies with subtitles in movie theaters, and approximately 100% of all animated movies in Brazilian movie theaters are dubbed, at least in most states, most of the time). Many signs in banks, shopping centers, etc. are both in Portuguese and English, and rarely in Spanish. By contrast, I often see hygiene and beauty products like shampoo, soap, deodorant, etc. with both Portuguese and Spanish writing on the same product.
We have English as a regular course in schools, from 5th grade to high school, but the quality is really bad. Some people in Brazil like to mock the specific fact that we conjugate the present tense of "to be" every year in school.
When I was in school, we usually received our textbooks (like 1 for each subject) which we were supposed to take back home and them bring to school everyday. (or just the days when we had that certain subject) I had a tendency to skip school basically the whole year and have little more than 0% attendance sometimes, so I had plenty of time to read my textbooks at home.
I like the ability to navigate English sites on the internet. English Wikipedia is better than its Portuguese counterpart; except the latter usually has more to say about Brazilian people and Brazilian history. Mostly any learning material that I can find in Portuguese I can find in English too. Some sites and comics I like to read are in English (then again, some comics I like to read are in Portuguese and apparently you can't find them in English); and when a book is in English, I don't bother to find a Portuguese translation. That's nice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: The utility of knowing English almost can't be overstated. It's unfortunate in a way but it's also extremely useful to have a more-or-less global language and as far as having a hyperpower in the world, you could do a lot worse than the United States. Still not a good situation but things could have been much different after World War II. Knowing Spanish would open up a lot of opportunities all around your continent, of course. They may be irrelevant to you--you could spend a lifetime exploring Brazil! How does pt.wp handle differences between Brazilian and African/European Portuguese in the encyclopedia? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that having a second language like Spanish (or English) opens up a lot of possibilities for travel. Both languages rank high in the list of languages by total number of speakers. Maybe you are thinking of visiting, or already visited, any Spanish-speaking countries? I don't travel much, but I've been to other states in Brazil a few times to visit friends and family.
I have a limited knowledge of history, so I may be wrong when talking about it, feel free to correct me. The "capitalism X communism" conflict was related to the fact that Brazil was in a military dictatorship for a few decades, which was before I was born. It's still normal for older people to remember it and talk about it, and artists still say on interviews how it was to avoid censorship etc. It does seem that the government of the US helped to fuck up some stuff, but I'll have to study more before being able to discuss it effectively.
The policy concerning regional differences of Portuguese in pt.wp is: w:pt:Wikipédia:Versões da língua portuguesa. According to the page, all varieties of Portuguese are welcome (seção/secção, contato/contacto). Edits that do little else than changing from one variety to the other are frowned upon. There are a few additional rules, like basically using Brazilian orthography in page titles concerning Brazilian people, place names, history, etc., and doing the same for other countries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Sorry--I got distracted from this chat. I have not visited any Hispanic countries other than the United States but I would love to be able to go to Iberia and throughout the Americas speaking Spanish and Portuguese (and Dutch and German but that's ambitious). Just like with Brazil, the United States is so large and diverse that you can spend a lifetime exploring it. And for what it's worth, all I was trying to say before is that it is globally unfair that there is one hyperpower in the world (the United States) but it comes with a benefit of spreading our language which is helpful for communication and the States has some pretty good qualities which it has exported as well (in addition to some very nasty ones). My understanding from a recent post on m: where someone wanted to create a European Portuguese fork of Wikipedia is that it is dominated by Brazilians and their orthographies. Does that not seem true to you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)