User talk:LlywelynII

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

Archived talk page[edit]

1 2

Assuming you aren't just sockpuppets[edit]

A concerted campaign of harrassment and vandalism of an editor's talk page by numerous editors is far more off-putting than a single unpleasant one. I'll probably stay just because I care about the project, but you're going to drive off other new editors acting like this and you should be ashamed of yourselves. — LlywelynII 23:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you're way off. What you call vandalism may or may not be justified, but it's not vandalism. There's no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry, and the only coordination I see in this exchange is some people people giving their opinions, when asked, and others sticking up for fellow editors- nothing concerted about it. For my part, I had to respond to the nastiness and unfairness of your edit comments, which were directed at editors who regularly contribute far more to our Chinese and Japanese coverage- and to the encouragement of other editors- than anything you could ever do.
As for "harassment", It started as a simple request for you change your editing practices, which you responded to with criticism on a marginally-related topic. Not long after that, you responded to an argument made by way of a straightforward statement of opinion with a bunch of loaded words directed toward belittling the person who made the argument and pretty much the whole Chinese Wiktionary community. Suzukaze-c reacted to that provocation with a post that may have been rude and confrontational, but understandable given the tone of your previous comment.
Your response, though, was worse, and quite typical: you love to criticize others, but you simply can't handle criticism directed at you. If anything, your response has only served to show that the post had a legitimate point- that you have no respect for anyone else, nor for their contributions. You may go along for a while and play nice, but at the slightest provocation- imagined or otherwise- you're back to savaging anyone or anything you disagree with.
I'm less worried about people being intimidated by the actions taken here, then about letting your nastiness and wild accusations directed at other contributors go unanswered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, or you wouldn't have "stuck up" for your fellow editor by repeatedly vandalizing my talk page in the first place. (No, it wasn't vandalism or harrassment—however unpleasant and off-topic—until it was restoring content removed by a talk page's own user. That was, however, precisely what you three did and, yes, it's indefensible and you shouldn't to it to other users, however much you currently happen to like Suze more than me.)
You're welcome to vent your displeasure elsewhere and that's fine; you're welcome to post helpful and substantive suggestions about the project here; but yes I'll remove further drama from my own talk page and you three should learn to respect that even from editors you happen to dislike. — LlywelynII 02:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of glosses in zh-forms[edit]

Is there any particular reason why you insist on using links, line breaks and {{nowrap}} for the glosses in {{zh-forms}}? The formatting looks very cluttered and not that much different from the automatic glosses. If you find it is absolutely necessary for the glosses to be in that format, it could be automated if we change the data modules for single character glosses, which currently do not have links and use semicolons instead of line breaks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It's much clearer and less cluttered in display. It's a hypertext dictionary and of course you should include links. What it looks like in code is completely irrelevant. It'd be great if you could automate better formatting than what you're using now, although it sounds like you disagree anyway. In any case, I only override the glosses when they're wrong or throwing in irrelevant senses, so improved automated forms are a separate issue. — LlywelynII 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the links, but I'm not sure if we need to use line breaks and {{nowrap}} when semicolons should suffice. I'm thinking of trying to improve the automatic glosses by adding the feature of choosing which glosses to display. Take 丁亥, which has these automatic glosses for the individual characters:
  • 丁: “4th heavenly stem; man; people; little cube; a Chinese surname”
  • 亥: “12th earthly branch; 9-11 p.m.”
I think we should having something like {{zh-forms|1|1}} to capture the first gloss for each character. @Wyang, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is a good suggestion. If we do this, a small link in the top right to the gloss data page would be handy. Something similar could be done for multisyllabic words too. Wyang (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(One possible problem is that the data may be edited and "2" may refer to something different in the future though... —suzukaze (tc) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
Line breaks are much clearer to the actual reader. A mess of semicolon text is much less helpful and there's no reason to leave it at that. — LlywelynII 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I would beg to differ. If a gloss is too long, it would force the box to be unnecessarily wide. Also, without semicolons, it is possible for readers to read the glosses as one phrase instead of separate phrases. The formatting you're using is drastically different from all the other regular editors here, which should not happen. Unless you have arguments that can convince other editors to follow your formatting, I will be removing any unnecessary superfluousness from the entries you have edited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew units of measure[edit]

Where are you getting these values for Hebrew units of measure? I'm not sure they were even accurate enough for it to be worth giving any kind of conversion to modern units. --WikiTiki89 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Isn't the reference already in the entry, like at lethek? Also, many modern English Bibles have units of measure conversion tables. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right. But still, I don't know how historically accurate they are, or how accurately they even ever were used in practice. I think the amounts aren't lexically significant anyway. We should probably give the physical reference to the size, like "length of a forearm" or "size of a large basket", but there is no need for overprecision. Also, I'm mainly concerned with the Hebrew entries, not the English entries. --WikiTiki89 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's Oxford and of course they're lexically significant. It's lexically meaningless to give "ancient measure" with no modern value where it's known which is why I included an authoritative up-to-date source. These were not just "forearms" or "pots": they were in fact standardized units within a certain degree of precision (hence "about").
If you have other and up-to-date and authoritative sources to the contrary, we can talk about adding a range of values, but don't remove well-sourced and pertinent information where other people have gone to the trouble to find it for our readers. — LlywelynII 03:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That said, thanks for making me look at this again. In English sources, omer and homer are all mixed up but I just found the right original form of "homer" at Strong's so I'll fix that at the Hebrew entry. — LlywelynII 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew Ayin ע and the use of ʿ[edit]

As you are the original and primary contributor for the Baʿal page, I thought it would be appropriate and respectful to message you rather than make autonomous corrections to your work without first checking to see if there was an underlying reasoning to what you wrote. I am referring specifically to your assertion that Baʿal is an "alternative spelling of Baal, preserving its glottal stop." I am not a native Hebrew speaker, but I would contest that the use of ʿ in Baʿal is in fact an attempt to preserve pharyngealisation rather than a glottal stop.

While it is true that some dialects of Modern Hebrew pronounce the letter ע‎ as a glottal stop [ʔ], it was historically pronounced as either a voiced pharyngeal fricative [ʕ] (like Arabic ʿayin) or something close to it. In Arabic transcriptions, ʿ is used to denote the pharyngealisation caused by ʿayin, while a simple ' is used for a glottal stop, and in my experience this is also the practise with Hebrew notations that employ both marks. Thus, for dialects that would pronounce ע as a glottal stop, or even the many in which the ע is now silent, it would be accurate to transcribe it as Ba'al. Whereas if one were to make the specific distinction of transcribing the Hebrew as Baʿal, this should be taken as a preservation of the pharyngealisation that is present in the historical pronunciation of ע and which typifies Mizrahi dialects of Modern Hebrew.

I would thus suggest that an appropriate correction be made at your convenience, in the interest of accuracy, or I could do it myself at some future date if you are unable. Of course, if you had some prevailing rationale for according the ʿ to a glottal stop, then by all means leave the page should be left as it is.

Thank you for your kind message. Do remember to sign your posts, though. — LlywelynII 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Old English non-lemma forms[edit]

I've corrected a bunch of entries you created. They did not follow the principle that non-lemma forms should not duplicate information that is given on the lemma. This includes definitions and genders. —CodeCat 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I've reverted your removal of the 'you' definition on cha. Wiktionary policy is that "a term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", and "cha" meets this. If you disagree, please start a discussion at Requests for Deletion. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Could I ask you to stop using {{etyl}}, which has been deprecated in favour of {{der}}? Also, please put {{attention}} on your Ancient Greek entries, because you're leaving rather many errors. Thank you.--Barytonesis (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You can, but the page for {{der}} looks like a mess and I don't see any obvious improvements. Is there some actual effect it has that makes it an improvement? E.g., directly borrowed terms, I suppose I really should be using {{bor}} because it shunts things into a different category automatically and we'd obviously like to keep that consistent across entries. If {{der}} is simply someone's recoding of {{etyl}}, there's no real point.
As for the formatting, I was following that used by other sites or the links here but I'll certainly defer to you. If {{attention}} makes it easier for you to help give everything a second look, I'll certainly do what I can. Thanks for your time and improvements. =) — LlywelynII 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think {{etyl}} is now only used as a backend to the other etymology templates. Also, the idea is to have the same condensed markup for all etymology templates, i.e. {{name of the template|target language code|source language code|term}} for consistency; as you can see, that's not how {{etyl}} behaves. But if you want more details you'll be better off asking someone like User:Rua. Anyhow, virtually everyone is moving towards {{der}} now, so keeping using {{etyl}} will just needlessly confuse things and lengthen the process. And yes, it would be better to use {{bor}} or {{inh}} when appropriate.
Also, for the header "Further reading", please see this vote. As a matter of fact, I preferred the header "References", but the idea is to use it only for footnotes. See νᾶνος (nânos). --Barytonesis (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your time writing, but you seem to have misunderstood what was going on.
The lead section to that vote explicitly describes that References continue to exist and should be used for information that supports the entry. The further reading section is for things in addition to that. Which, yknow, is what those section names obviously mean, regardless of four-person (and therefore rather unbinding) process votes. — LlywelynII 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


They do not need to be split into two different etymologies. The second sense is a reanalysis of the first sense influenced by 盆 (basin). Also, if the entire term is phonetically borrowed, please use gloss=- and do not suppress links to individual characters by using type=. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that the term is not a borrowing from the Sanskrit, adjust the etymology, ideally with a source justifying your personal opinion. If it's borrowed from Sanskrit, the {{zh-forms}} should reflect that. — LlywelynII 16:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The second sense is still from Sanskrit. It's just that it has been reanalyzed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's a borrowing from Sanskrit, that's what it is. The choice of characters to fit the sense is not a reason to pretend it's not a phonetic transcription, and is just something to address in the etymology. — LlywelynII 16:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There's something called phono-semantic matching. I don't think {{zh-forms}} needs to suppress the glosses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A few things about Chinese place names[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to point out a few things about Chinese place names (and entries in general):

  • A 地級市 should not be called a "prefecture", which is used to translate 州; they should be called prefecture-level cities. The only administrative divisions actually called prefectures in modern China are autonomous prefectures (自治州).
  • AFAICT, the geography label should only be used for words specific to geography as a field of study. Place names generally do not need this label.
  • It seems like you've put a sense for the seat of government for many places. Are you sure that all of them are used to refer to the seat of government? Does it merit a separate sense?
  • I would recommend you use {{place}}, which gives a good format for the definition line and adds categories.
  • I would also recommend you use {{zh-div}} for the administrative division's name.
  • Chinese entries generally use {{zh-wp}} instead of {{wikipedia}} to allow linking to Chinese Wikipedia and other Wikipedias.

If you disagree with any of the above, I hope we can talk things out. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I do. Is there anything to "talk about"? Aren't you the one responsible for removing even the functionality for capitalization from Cantonese romanizations?
You're just going to ignore my reasons, revert the formatting to whatever you felt like in the first place, and there's not much I can do to change that since you're more active here and I don't really feel like babysitting all of the entries or learning coding to protect them from you, even when your formatting leads to eyesores like entries starting with series of parentheses. I'll just set them up the way they should be in the first place, and you can convert the {{lb}} templates to whatever category (Category:zh:Towns, Category:zh:Counties of China, etc.) you feel is the most appropriate substitute. I'm happy enough there's something here for the people coming from Wikipedia. The categories themselves are too haphazardly organized for me to keep track of (or, more honestly, to bother starting still more fights over their proper organization, categorization, etc.), but you're obviously on top of this and don't want the entries to go into a general "sense" category. — LlywelynII 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I really, really hate to say this, but your self-righteous attitude and lack of self-awareness is astounding. "Whatever you felt like", "protect them from you", "eyesores", "I'll just set them up the way they should be in the first place"...
The problem is that you've come to Rome, spurned half of what the Romans do, cherry-picked the customs you like, and covered your ears when they suggest that you kindly stop.
I could say that your formatting is an eyesore. I could decide to protect Wiktionary's entries from you. I could set up your entries the way I think "they should be in the first place".
Your own formatting style is consistent, which is not necessarily bad, but it consistently doesn't meet the community standard agreed on by nearly everyone else, which approaches unimpressive, and you refuse to meet community standard, instead following your own standard which you staunchly believe is the One True Path, (Because everyone else is clearly wrong, even though they're the ones who set everything up) which IMHO is fairly inappropriate, considering how Wiktionary is a community wiki.
I would like to see these things talked out, but it's hard to even want to start when your attitude is like this. —suzukaze (tc) 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't hate to say it. You've been like this from the beginning. There's not a huge amount of discussion, with strong and broad community consensus; there's maybe twelve guys who do the coding and patrol entries and support one another on 'policy' decisions. I don't spurn "half of what the Romans do"; you guys do a generally good job, make a few mistakes, and have very little interest in outside opinions. I make good entries, improve the project, and you browbeat me for it. Almost none of this is about entries themselves or their content; it's about the formatting, bookkeeping, this-or-that template end of things. And a lot of that is needless template churn, like (to use your {{bor}} example above) completely deleting the etyl template because some of the coders would rather no one at all be forced to type etyl and m. (There may be more persuasive arguments, but that's all that was easily findable from etyl's own page.) It's a pain, sure, but I'll just keep on with what I'm doing, fix the actual mistakes, and you guys can either be kind and persuasive like Mr Leung is aiming to do or you can keep on being rude and demeaning and get it back from the rest of us. — LlywelynII 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Fwiw, apologies for editing your comment, but kindly just use parentheses and not footnotes on a talk page. — LlywelynII 04:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Please reply if you have seen this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. — LlywelynII 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want this to become like previous discussions. I know I can't force you to change your preferences, but Wiktionary is much stricter than Wikipedia in terms of entry formatting; this is to ensure that entries are consistent. That said, formatting can change if it's causing too much problem. I'm not satisfied with the series of parentheses either, now that you brought it up, but putting {{zh-div}} inside the definition doesn't seem right either.
Now about geography and such labels in {{lb}}, I've brought it up in the Beer Parlour to see what other editors think. We'll have to follow community consensus on that. If you strongly believe that these labels should be there, you can express your opinions there.
Now, something more important is the use of "prefecture" for 地級市. I've seen you do it here and on Wikipedia, and I've been changing them to "city". "Prefecture" is not the same as "prefecture-level city". I don't we should not be using outdated/unofficial verbiage and stick to the official name, which would be 市 in Chinese, translating to "city" in English. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I am sorry for my tone earlier. I had obviously confused you with Suzukaze.
To respond to your points on their merits: (a) I don't appreciate Suzukaze's attitude and was just taking the approach that I can metatag entries as having geographic information and leave it for you guys to sort out which categories things belong to. It's an improvement over not making a note of that and not eventually getting things sorted into their appropriate place. If people are going to stop browbeating the non-insiders and it isn't going to be a huge pain to deal with the categories (e.g., getting more abuse from Suzu or admins deleting categories for historical Chinese prefectures and other things that would need to be created as we go if we're not using a "Chinese geographic terms" catchall category), of course I don't mind formatting the entries that way. There should just be some system for collecting these terms as geographic names in the Chinese language, which is all that I was noting in the first place.
(b) There is no English equivalent for 地級市, prefecture does not only mean 州, and saying a county is a part of a city makes absolutely no sense in the English language. You're simply wrong about usage on this, possibly owing to translation issues. Google Scholar has 26 entries for "Ordos Prefecture" to one for "Ordos Prefecture-level City". Sure, you can describe it as a prefecture-level city but that's going to apply to discussions of it by itself or of the status of the local government. The administrative area is prefecture-level and can be, should be, and is glossed as a prefecture. (c) Dear G-d, please don't make me have to follow you around on Wikipedia to maintain the pages there; take that discussion to w:WPCHINA, w:WP:MOS-ZH, or something if you really feel that strongly about it. It really is just a concession that has to be made to the language differences; XYZ should absolutely be listed as a prefecture-level city on its own page but it's still simply better writing (and not incorrect or peculiar in the least) to describe ABC being "a county in XYZ Prefecture" (linking to the article discussing its exact status) instead of having to say that "ABC is a county in China that is under the administration of the prefecture-level city of XYZ". — LlywelynII 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Side note: I know I'm not wrong about informal usage or what flows better or is clearer to lay readers but, if I am mistaken and there is already a formal guideline about this over at Wiki, my apologies and just point it out to me. — LlywelynII 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you've seen my edits on Wikipedia, you'd know that I'm not arguing that it should be "XYZ Prefecture-level City" (which is terrible; you wouldn't even say XYZ 地級市 in Chinese), but "XYZ City" or just "XYZ" (which corresponds to normal Chinese usage). For example, google scholar:Ordos City has 1500 results, which is much more than google scholar:Ordos Prefecture. An even better example would be Taiyuan: google scholar:Taiyuan City with 11 000 results vs. google scholar:Taiyuan Prefecture with 59 results (most, if not all, of which actually refers to an ancient polity). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: You're right about "prefecture" not only meaning 州; Taiyuan Prefecture seems to refer to 太原郡. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but then you're talking about apples and oranges. google scholar:Ordos has even more, doubtless, but almost all of the results won't be talking about the prefecture or even the city. We want to specify that we're talking about the prefecture level and the entire prefectural area, not just the built-up central bit. And there's nothing wrong or abnormal about doing so. Again, if there's a Wiki specific policy to the contrary, do let me know, and even run it by Zanhe and some of the other China hands over there if you want to make it a policy but afaik that just isn't the case at the moment. — LlywelynII 10:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

LlywelynII (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Overzealousness on the part of User:DTLHS. The block is for removing a RFV notice on a page created with an existing citation and OED citation. The initial RFV was in good faith, asking for a citation that wasn't in Middle English. (I tend to include the earliest OED cites to establish the earliest attestation of entries.) Further modern cites are available at the already provided OED entry but, ok, not everyone has access. Further cites are available online but, ok, I was the guy creating the new page. I took the time to add a modern English citation...

and DTLHS readded the RFV without comment... and again... and again... So, yeah, edit warring, but not on my end.

There's already an existing formatted and linked OED cite, a modern cite, and the earliest attestation. With all due respect, the RFV can't possibly be in good faith and I shouldn't need to sit in the penalty box for DTLHS's refusal to explain whatever lingering problem s/he might possibly have with the entry. Thanks for you time and sorry for the bother. — LlywelynII 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh, well, for what it's worth, apparently getting notice of the block and coming over here to talk to you guys ended up eating the entire entry on reperition I'd formatted. Soo... I'm pretty disgusted and will just leave anyway for the next day in any case. If I'm the only one DTLHS has issues with, obviously that's on me; if there's some actual problem with the OED re: this entry, someone just explain it on its talk page; but do keep this in mind for later w/r/t DTLHS. Newer editors would certainly be even more frustrated than I am at the moment. — LlywelynII 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not, we have a process, and you decided all on your own that the process wasn't necessary and you wouldn't allow an admin to reinstate it. If you get served with a summons to appear in court, do you rip it up and chase away the process server because you think you've already resolved the issue? Do you change a light bulb by holding it in place and letting the entire world revolve around you? One of those was a joke.... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, you can bold admin but there is nothing on his talk page or the edit log to let others know that. Similarly, the "process" is to provide References for Verification, which the entry already had in spades. I did address the original, stated issue and took it to the talk page and made notes in my edit summary, none of which DTLHS did. Again, s/he's an admin and you're obviously circling the wagons but the "edit warring" here was entirely from the other direction. If it's just my abrasive personality, that's on me but do kindly keep an eye on treatment like this, because it's certainly not conducive to having people take time or effort to contribute. — LlywelynII 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've mistaken what RFV entails. Just for clarification, it does not mean adding a reference to the entry, but adding appropriate quotations for attestation. Please see WT:RFVE if you're not familiar with the process. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the OED entry, which (again) was part of the original creation of the entry, I added the appropriate quotation at the beginning of this mess. The OED and two citations together make three and it was already marked as rare and obsolete, so this never really had a leg to stand on. — LlywelynII 03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)