User talk:Metaknowledge

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013
  4. Jul-Dec 2013
  5. Jan-Jun 2014
  6. Jul 2014-Jun 2015
  7. Jul-Dec 2015

Romanian translations[edit]

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but since you were involved in the discussion at his talk page, I hope you don't mind me contacting you. I've monitored Baican's translations and today he has instigated a conflict due to this article I have proposed for deletion. I did my due diligence when I proposed this article for deletion, so I don't appreciate being accused for "copy-pasting". Does any user deserve this kind of treatment from a fellow user? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: I'm sorry that you've had to deal with this issue again. I cannot find any uses of the term in either the form Baican entered nor the definite form on Google Books, so I cannot speak to attestation except to say that I can't find any. As to his accusation, it's undeserved, but there's not much we can do about that. If he personally attacks another user or does something that he has been warned about before on his talkpage, he may be blocked. However, as someone who's been involved, I'd prefer if someone else were to do it — ISMETA or Chuck Entz, perhaps. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Metaknowledge! Thank you for your advice! He started adding superlative adjective entries again which have been deleted before. I marked them once again for speedy deletion since they don't fulfil the requirements for inclusion. If more incorrect translations are added and if he continues this editing war (he has on several occasions reverted my corrections), I'll talk to ISMETA or Chuck Entz. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Tell me if there's anything more I can do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One noun to add[edit]

In case you haven't noticed, I added גריווע ‎(grive) to a translation table in the entry mane. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Block time[edit]

Hey MK. I'm due a wiki-vacation. Can you block this account please, and any others of mine you might happen to spot in the upcoming 25 years or so, please? Ta. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I can't promise re future incarnations. Enjoy your freedom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

re: Kikuyu etc.[edit]

Thank you for your comment, but I only posted what I could attest. There are quite a few resources about this language although I have not accessed any of them. By the way, I have a question about this. Reading WT:CFI#Number of citations I thought that obvious attestation was strictly compulsory. Did I misinterpret it? Yours sincerely, Eryk Kij (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@エリック・キィ: Indeed, it is not compulsory, and if you look at the business about durability, you'll see that your citations are not actually useful for supporting the validity of the entry per Wiktionary policy. (I can't speak for other resources, but I'll say that the Swadesh lists, though usually not containing anything that's outright wrong, are somewhat less than 100% reliable.) But in all honesty, you needn't worry much about attestation as long as you're adding verifiably correct words from reliable sources. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
All right. Thank you. I remove Swadesh lists at least and will someday find out more reliable sources about them. --Eryk Kij (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

This was my first attempt to add a word to Wiktionary. Thank you for the correction. I should have been more observant. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caeruleancentaur: No worries. Please ask me if you have any further questions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again[edit]

I didn't know what the "t" meant. As some entries don't have it, I was simply doing copy and paste using one of the other languages. I'm retired and I've had some small education in Haitian Creole. I really like it and I noticed that Haitian Creole words were missing in so many of the entries that I decided to add them when I could. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yiddish book from 1543 fully available on Google Books[edit]

Just thought I'd share my find, in case you're interested (although I couldn't verify the publication date from within the book): https://books.google.com/books?id=TOYdlPFPp98C&pg=PT1. --WikiTiki89 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very, very cool (although hard for me to read). I have a lot of work to do with contemporary Yiddish first, though! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
On second look, it seems to be handwritten, not published. The script is vaybertaytsh, which is similar enough to modern cursive Hebrew (although it took me a while to figure out that the letter that looks like
Pentomino Y2.svg
is a ג, and interestingly that נ is written in its final form ן when preceding it). --WikiTiki89 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of "cite meta" to "quote-meta"[edit]

I have been working on bringing some coherence to the {{cite-}} and {{quote-}} templates. Essentially, the former are now for citing references in "Reference" sections and on talk pages, whereas the latter are for quotations in dictionary entries. I would like to propose that {{cite meta}}, which is used by many of the {{quote-}} templates, be renamed {{quote-meta}} for consistency. The template is currently protected. Should this be discussed at the Grease Pit or elsewhere? Smuconlaw (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that needs discussion. Traditionally, WT:RFM would be the place to do it, but that's a rather slow venue, so WT:GP would fine, I reckon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll start a discussion there. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Formatting[edit]

Thanks for the comment and I will add the gender and translations next time. :) Jackninja5 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you a human or a robot?[edit]

I intended to revert my edit myself, and you did that for me. That's good. Do you use some program to help edit? --202.195.129.247 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult, but I do like to pay attention to recent edits, especially by anonymous users, so I can remove vandalism quickly. For future reference, you can use the 'Preview' button to check your changes to a page before you save it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's neither a compliment nor an insult. I edit that page so that I can have direct links to those French words. And I was just about to revert my edit when I found you had already done it. So I think maybe you are a robot account since you edit so quickly.

I did that editing beacause I'm learning French and I want to start with simplest words one by one. So I add direck links so that I can look up those words more quickly. I was about to revert it and then just view the old version. That way, I don't affect any other users and I can still look up words more quickly.

So, that's not an insult, though it may sound like so. I asked that question simply because you edit so fast that I'm curious how you manage to do it. Do you use some program or so? That maybe a silly question, but trust me, I'm not insulting. Feel sorry fot that. --202.195.129.247 05:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I do have a gadget enabled that makes reverting a little bit faster, but for the most part it's still a manual effort to identify problematic edits. In any case, good luck with learning French! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, both for your editing and your words. I always respect wiki contributors like you, for your efforts to make wiktionary a valuable source. --202.195.129.247 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

When I want to try out links, I preview the edit and use right-click or ctrl/cmd-click to open the the link in a new tab. That way I can try all kinds of links without having to save the original edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea. But actually I saved that editing simply for myself. Since I'm not a wiki contributor, so I'm really selfish, I edited for myself and revered it so as not to affect others. I guess it's not proper to do something like that, though.--202.195.129.247 06:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

affzer[edit]

Eh, how is a newgroup not about the Internet topically? It exists entirely on the Internet. Equinox 23:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I guess you're right. I suppose what we really need is greater granularity in those categories. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, thank you.[edit]

Should the Norman dialects be deleted from Module:languages/datax? —JohnC5 05:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Last I checked, they hadn't all been switched over, so we were leaving them in the module to above module errors. If that's no longer true, go for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed all the references to roa-jer in Mainspace, Appendix, Reconstruction, and Template (see here). There are a fair few mentions in talk pages. Should we delete it or move it to mod:etymology languages/data? —JohnC5 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
roa-grn is also cleaned out (see here). —JohnC5 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know; maybe @embryomystic, -sche will be able to tell you whether or not to add it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, everything's been migrated over. embryomystic (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
So, should we move it to etymology languages or delete? —JohnC5 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin declension[edit]

Are you sure that the genitive case is still present in Vulgar Latin? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Romanian has always had one, so at least in the eastern half of Rome, it never vanished. We could just put a regional footnote next to the case. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on my reading, it does not seem that simple. Also, Romanian does not seem to possess a distinct genitive form, just genitive usage of a shared genitive-dative form. —JohnC5 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. There’s also a theory that their vocative case does not come from Latin, but I haven’t looked into that much. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There was no single Vulgar Latin, so having a declension table for it is a little silly regardless. I had a source for what I did there, but I don't remember what it was; feel free to change it if you have references to back you up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There’s no unified form of Vulgar Latin. That is correct. Still, I think that a declension table is salvageable. If you look at conjugation tables for Old French, they have various different forms for the regions and dates, so we could do the same thing for Vulgar Latin. The most obvious disadvantage is that the tables might look crowded. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)