User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/10

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

Vulgar Latin[edit]

This is not a valid language; we treat all Latin from all periods as "Latin", including the "Vulgar Latin" entries. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the category, or the related discussion on the Beer Parlor? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, did you read my response there? Part of speech categories should be listed by language, not by dialect or sub-language. --EncycloPetey 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
WT:BP#Appendix:Vulgar Latin *montanea. Page is experimental, could be deleted/renamed, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem with that page, but with Category:Vulgar Latin nouns. As you say, the experimental appendix page can be renamed; I'm not sure yet whether I prefer "Appendix:Latin...". --EncycloPetey 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would use Category:Latin nouns or start a "dialect" Category:Vulgar Latin along the lines of Category:British English. However, I would not subdivide the latter by part of speech. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
OK my guests are late. Another solution, since Category:Proto-Romance derivations failed RFDO would be in {{proto}} {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|Romance|[[Category:{{{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang}}}:}}Vulgar Latin derivations]]}} meaning that it would categorize in Vulgar Latin derivations, but link to Appendix:Proto-Romance *.... In other words, rename this appendix to Appendix:Proto-Romance *montanea
Mind if I merge this with the Beer Parlour discussion, to avoid duplication? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the category. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, for your helpful change to the page targeted killing. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


User_talk:Anuragr Saw your comment on arpenter - You probably weren't sure of its root (arpennis). I had added the etymology from "Dictionnaire de l’Académie française" (which I later discovered the french wiktionary is heavily dependent on).

That, and the lack of formatting, yes. Sometimes it's quicker to revert to the last good version than to clean edits up. If we all had infinite time and effort, it would be a different matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


I trust you are aware of Wiktionary:REDIR#Other_options,

For languages other than English, especially the more inflected ones, flexibility is retained on this matter, and creating redirects to the basic form of a word is still a better option than keeping a red link.

I fully endorse this.

I see you deleted the στερεωμα redirect. This seems rather trigger happy to me, as you did not replace the redirect with a valid entry. Either it is your opinion that there is a valid entry for στερεωμα distinct from στερέωμα, or else you should refrain from recreating the problem (the red link) I solved. I understand that for ancient Greek, our practice is to place entries at the unaccented form and redirect the accented form. So the στερέωμα should properly be moved to στερεωμα. If you want to do that, be my guest. If you have another solution I would like to hear about it. I just find it annoying to see you go out of your way to prevent a solution. --Dbachmann 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is way outdated then, see WT:REDIR#Redirecting different word forms which says the precise opposite. A redirect is not better than a red link - an entry is better than a red link. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
WT:AGRC should answer the second question. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Wiktionary admins delete pages from under me and when pointed to policy pages tell me they are "outdated". I am quoting from the very page you asked me to read. Also, I did not ask a question about Ancient Greek.

In my opinion, based on knowledge of Greek orthography and common sense, we should avoid creating double accented/unaccented entries for Greek etyma unless there is an actual need for disambiguation. The "no redirects" policy was intended for English, and it makes perfect sense for English. It makes little or no sense for inflected languages, or languages written with diacritics, which is exactly why flexibility is retained. I would be grateful if you would avoid using your admin buttons to prevent people from using this flexibility to create meaningful lemmas.

I am fully aware of the "all words in all languages mandate". Creating redirects from inflected forms does not impinge on that mandate in the slightest. If you think it does you may not understand what a "word" is.

I would ask you again to provide evidence that there is any word in any language that would require us to create a στερεωμα entry on top of the στερέωμα entry. If there is, please create that entry. If there is not, please restore the redirect. --Dbachmann 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it contradicts WT:REDIR#Redirecting different word forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
For languages other than English, especially the more inflected ones, flexibility is retained on this matter, and creating redirects to the basic form of a word is still a better option than keeping a red link.
It doesn't say anything about what these redirects should be. For example I can redirect noiihefguiarh to στερέωμα as it's the basic form of the word. It doesn't mention "inflected forms" - even if it did, and it doesn't, στερεωμα isn't listed as an inflected form of στερέωμα. Thank you and good night. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Away until Thursday[edit]

I am away from now until Thursday 28.10.2010. Please help out SemperBlotto and read the recent changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymologie de equito[edit]

Je ne sais pas si le sujet t'intéresse (ni comment marchent les templates ici, d'où ce message) mais l'étymologie me semble être fausse

la construction serait plus logiquement l'univerbation de equus + ito (fréquentatif de eo) : monter à cheval, aller à cheval

et non eques, equitis chevalier, qui est pour sa part un ancien déverbal de equito

on sent bien que le verbe "aller à cheval, chevaucher" ne peut pas dériver de "cavalier, chevalier".

--Diligent 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The etymology was added by Caladon (talkcontribs), who's very much a respected Latin editor. You should ask him. I'm happy enough to put something on the talk page, in English! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

conjugation for surseoir[edit]

Hi MG, what template should I use to conjugate this word? Its conjugation is similar to asseoir. JamesjiaoTC 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to create a new one. {{fr-conj-asseoir}} is a bit weird, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created this template {{fr-conj-eoir}}. I can't at the moment think of another word other than surseoir, rasseoir and asseoir that has this verb ending. Can you check to see if the conjugations are correct? Also if you need to add any additional info before the table (like all the other conj templates), please be my guest. JamesjiaoTC

to-, tocome[edit]

Hey! The debate on these appears to have ceased. Can I delete the rfd tags from these? Leasnam 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV debate is actually inappropriate, it should be on the talk page, and the to- page does indeed look like a keeper. We close RFD debates 'when is reasonable' so you're free to close it. Just, someone might disagree and undo your edit. There're no super-strict guidelines on this, and I'm glad their aren't. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok. I'll just delete it from to-. For the other, I suppose I will leave that up to you et al. to either move, or otherwise. Knew you'd know! ;) Leasnam 18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Leasnam 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Couple of things
  1. Just realised I was wrong about tocome and reverted myself
  2. Yes, remove {{rfd}} from to-
  3. Please don't use templates in section headers, as they break headers. {{temp}} is an exception as it's cleverly designed to be able to be used in headers. {{l}} isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
k, sure thing. Leasnam 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman, Old French and accents[edit]

Careful with accents. Old French (and Anglo-Norman) did not use accents.

Just read the following:

"L'accent aigu est un diacritique de l'alphabet latin hérité de l'accent aigu grec. Il fait ses premières apparitions en français au XVIe siècle, introduit par Geoffroy Tory en 1529." (Source:

--Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There's evidence to the contrary, however. In Leeds' Brotherton Library you can get Le Roman de Brut which has a picture of the first page of one of the versions, and that quite clearly uses acute accents. Unless Wikipedia can back its claim up, I'd say it's unverified, pushing into original research. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
And of course it clashes massively with the Godefroy, which gives thousands or tens of thousands of words with accents. How about trové? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't because modern printed editions of Old French and Anglo-Norman texts use accents that their original medieval versions did use accents. You're talking about evidence of the contrary. Well, show it to me; I'm curious... --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There's evidence to the contrary, however. In Leeds' Brotherton Library you can get Le Roman de Brut which has a picture of the first page of one of the versions, and that quite clearly uses acute accents. Unless Wikipedia can back its claim up, I'd say it's unverified, pushing into original research. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Godefroy died some years ago, otherwise you could write to him and tell him his dictionary is wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing in omata#Finnish[edit]

I rewrote the usage notes and etymology to make them more neutral. I don't think it's POV pushing to explain why and how a word is regarded as controversial by the native speakers. What do you think of the text now? --Hekaheka 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, I haven't actually read the entry, I just saw all the IP edits and figured that a native (or skilled) Finnish speaker needed to look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


From Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:mf it seems that the template is only used on talk pages. The issue with deprecated templates is IMHO that someone, including me, might use them if they work as expected, so I would prefer to delete it. Matthias Buchmeier 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, simply that AutoFormat (talkcontribs) is programmed to fix it in the main namespace. I'm suggesting that perhaps AutoFormat fixing these templates is better than a red link. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Duplicates[edit]

Hi Mglovesfun,

I have found a worrying amount of Romanian duplicates (see forță‎ and forţă‎). As I mentioned before in the Request for Deletion page, Wernescu has added a staggering amount of Romanian articles using a different unicode. I seem to recall a discussion about this problem in the Beer Parlour (or something like that). I believe most participants came to the agreement that ş and ţ were preferred. This agreement seemed to be reasonable.

The current situation is really frustrating, because I just don't know how to handle it. I've asked the Romanian Wikipedia administrators if they could help me, but received the cold shoulder. Since I'm the only active administrator in the Romanian Wiktionary, I've decided to keep using the "old" letters because: (1) I really don't feel like I'm up for the task of changing 39000 articles manually, (2) the other Wiktionary projects already use ş and ţ, and (3) I perceive this change as a bureaucratic stance to make the language stand out from the rest.

Just tell me which policy has unanimously been acquired here and I'll comply.

Best Regards, --Robbie SWE 11:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well no policy has been adopted, unanimous or not. I've found the discussion, Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/August#Orthographic Change in the Romanian Wikipedia Project: Its Effects on Wiktionary which seems to back you up. I'll throw my hat in and say we should keep the 'old' orthography, not least because it's not a matter of spelling but of Unicode difference (well, not quite true, there's a small visible difference). A vote would usually be a good idea, but I don't know if there'd be high enough participation, given Romanian is not a major world language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! What's going to be done to Wernescu's duplicates? I've tried to tell him in English and Romanian, but he prefers to ignore and denigrate me. He has been banned from several projects (including permanently from the Romanian Wikipedia, and momentarily from the Romanian Wiktionary; Wernescu is his cover-up username, his real name is Baican). --Robbie SWE 12:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
He's remarkably stubborn. You have to 'admire' his ability to ignore seemingly all input from other editors. A lot of his BAICAN entries got speedy deleted by me and SemperBlotto. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I tried reading the inscruction for the template, but your version makes more sense. Kevlar67 19:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

laver#Old French[edit]

Yo. The conjugation template here seems to have produced something much more like modern French than Old French. The present tense should look like lef, leves, levet, lavons, lavez, levent – it's the classic example of French ‘paradigm levelling’, where Old French shows regular development from Latin but modern French evens all the stems out so they're the same. Here the nous and vous forms stayed regular, and the stem was borrowed into all the others for modern French. (The opposite happened with amer, where amons and amez became aimons and aimez by analogy with the regular ai- stem in the other forms.) Wait, is this the most confusing message ever? All I was trying to say is, I don't really know how to manually fix templates like this, is there an "irregular" conjugation template where they can be filled in? Ƿidsiþ 17:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Mglovesfun. Since I figured that you were involved in creating a series of pages that are now being brought under the discussion in the link above, I thought it might be courtesy to notify you of their discussion. Your input and clarification, especially on the policy WT:Categorization is wanted. TeleComNasSprVen 19:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


This isn't entirely correct. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the word 'wrong'. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, passive aggression just comes naturally :] — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Ullmann's inactivity[edit]

Thanks :)

~Yuga. 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)~

Question: Login Problems[edit]

Hi Mg! This is Leasnam. I am at a friend's house, and as usual I am having difficulty staying logged in. I am able to log in, but as soon as I navigate away from the "Login Successful" page, it logs me out. I do have cookies enabled on this PC. Any insights on how I might recitfy this? 21:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (Leasnam)

No idea; I go to Ruakh and msh210 with my technical problems, I suggest you do the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
k thanks


It was Robert MacNeil's video about the Story of English that said that "importantly" was not a correct form of the adjective, "important." MacNeil is a Scottish-Canadian/imported American who is unusually interested with American English; that I understand. But I thought he might have a point.

I don't have a problem with "importantly;" I just want to make sure it is correct if and when I use it. Until you (or anybody) can convince me otherwise, I'll simply say, "Important."

Anyway, thank you for replying so quickly!  :-) I look forward to any rebuttal.

Rghollenbeck 20:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no universal definition of "correct". Make your own mind up. Evaluate the evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


(1) I don't know what you mean by "{ { temp | comparable } }", and the search engines do not find it.
(2) If "truest" is not the superlative of "true", then "true" may not be the main entry. 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) RB

Truest is of course the superlative of true, just not all of the senses are comparable. {{comparable}} is a Wiktionary template designed to show that it is comparable. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And what if it is, that none of the senses are comparable? This is my position. I've been looking at this issue using and google. "truest" is listed in many online dictionaries, but only the urban dictionary gives an example, and their definition with this example is NOT "the superlative of true".
One author wrote a paper entitled "True, Truer, Truest", but the only example he gives of "truest" is simply not good English.
Because the word "truest" is often rediscovered, I think the question is not "is this a word", but "what is the definition". The definition for the citation I gave might be
1. (hyperbole) true 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) RB

My 2nd grader's teacher says that "the truest" means "the best". I'd also think that this is slang in the sense of being improper English. (Which, may I add, is why this is here, why is this being taught to my 2nd grader?)

Note that controversial superlatives for words that are not comparable is mentioned in the entry for "comparable" in the "Appendix:Glossary". 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) RB

My opinion is don't tell anyone tell you how to speak your native language. Make your own mind up. Live your own life. And Urban Dictionary is specifically for made up words. I've always wondered if they speedy-delete words like have and be, because they actually exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
My only contribution to it was T&A (or maybe T and A or T & A, I forget now), defined as "tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy", and it was deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the definition of "truest" is "the superlative of true", your position that the main entry is "true" is implicitly correct. I think I'm on to something, that the current definition for "truest" is incorrect, but I don't know how to build consensus. Discussing the point at "true" would be conceding the point even before the discussion had begun. Changing the definition of "truest," so as to be able to use the talk page at "truest" to build consensus, seems backwards. I conclude that discussion of "truest" where the main word is "true" should be sorted at "true", but discussion of "truest" where "true" is not the main word should be left at "truest". Thanks for your replies, RB 18:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure why you think it's incorrect. The New Oxford Dictionary of English gives true (truer, truest) and "the truest" gets 829,000 results on Google Books. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Verbatimist is a commonly used word just not in any formal dictionary. Why have you deleted it? —This unsigned comment was added by Leeconne (talkcontribs) at 11 November 2010.

Evidence, please? See WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

google it and you'll find more


You asked Eipnvn a while ago "Modern Greek, with a diacritic like that?" I'm not sure if you got an answer. If you didn't - it is yes.

  • In Greek αι is usually pronounced e, as in yes
  • αί merely means that the e is stressed
  • αϊ indicates that the two letters are pronounced separately
  • αΐ indicates that they are pronounced separately and that the i is stressed

The best example is καΐκι pronounced ka-ee-ki (Greek words can only have one stressed syllable) HTH —Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


yes, thanks, I noticed that the macro was not adequate after subitting, in fact I had made a copy-paste from the ethymology page, and I did not know by what macro to replace it... — MFH 04:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)



just wanted to thank you for correcting numerous of my errors xD cheers! 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that numerous. I know from my edits on the French Wiktionary, I'm also happy for a native speaker to reword my definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Why did you undo my revision of the word invise? As far as I understand, you don't have any references yourself of what invise means. I know though, that it is a compound word meaning, "in the moment of."

In Italian? Do you even know it's listed as Italian, not English? Do you dispute inviso as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
So then can we create an English section?
Yes, start with ==English==, end with ---- (indicating a page break). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

French leather...[edit]

Hey Mg, I just noticed our page for maroquinerie and I just thought I'd tell you that if you wouldn't mind I'd like you to add some links between cuir and whatever else may be relevant and it and vice versa I guesss. Thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, I hope, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ot question[edit]

...why are you no longer on IRC? -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually no idea. Probably because most of the time it was just the two of us online. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Is there any special reason for not speeding it? (of course is not a vandalism with the full meaning but in a -very very- wider meaning maybe it is :-) Wikifriendly --Xoristzatziki 20:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to think it might exist. I'm sort of on wikibreak, so I referred it to Saltmarsh who will undoubtedly solve it somehow. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Hey there! I just saw from the Edit log that you had corrected something; but I have marked it for deletion. I will recreate it. I would just like for it to be created under my login (I know, such vanity :\ :). Leasnam 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in now. Leasnam 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No we don't speedy delete valid entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


Well, sure, i dont quite understand your question, to be honest?

There is tons of sources for this, it is regular one.. --WhiteWriter 13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Do we use Indefinte Pronoun as a header? Or should Determiner be used instead? Leasnam 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but pronoun looks ok to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I notice you re-added the term "frichen" without citations, even though it failed RFV — being nominated in February of this year (permalink) and failing per RFV guidelines after "[sitting] for more than a month without being cited'" (in this case, nine months). You also removed an adjectival misspelling sense which had a citation. Could you explain why? — Beobach 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah right. If you'd have put that in the edit summary I wouldn't have reverted. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
True, I'm sorry; I note what I'm doing on RFV as I go through the entries there, but I'm bad about not explaining in the edit summaries. — Beobach 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I found the other 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue word you had mentioned: altamel. — Beobach 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Although it makes sense to label words in -ise as British spellings, I don't think it's right to label words in -ize as American spellings. The -ize ending is still preferred by the OED and used by the Times and, though definitely less common here, I would say it is basically acceptable everywhere. Ƿidsiþ 18:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad someone brought this up. The argument I'm making, based on various discussions is that a verb ending is -ise is a British spellings, and ending is -ize is an American spelling. Usage is irrelevant. Essentially the idea is to get these out of Category:British English, as this category (and Category:American English) is doing two jobs at once - British 'regionalisms' like snicket, but also words like realise, favour and valour are in there. I'm more in agreement with you than against you - realise shouldn't be listed as British as it's used everywhere, but User:Mzajac opposes this difference. Though I don't fully understand why. I think the crux of the argument is that other dictionary use British both for British spellings are for British English, so so should we. Therefore I created {{British spelling}} so we can do the same thing without them flooding into the same category. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any real disagreement with that way of splitting things up. I just don't think verbs in -ize fall into the American category at all. They're universal. Ƿidsiþ 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually WT:BP#Template:British spelling hasn't yet been archived, so you can still comment. Yeah, I'd like a little support on this. I can't work out Mzajac's argument at all, I'm afraid. It seems to be purely "we must do the same as other dictionaries" and has no logic beyond that. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Essentially Category:American English and Category:British English could do with a clean out to contain only, erm, well American English and British English. Re -ize/-ise spellings, I have no strong feeling on the matter. If you take those out of the equation it only really leaves you with -our/-or and double l spellings like traveled/travelled. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, it's better to have some sort of category for these, rather than none at all. I'd tend to say that from a traditionalist point of view, realise, totalise should be in there, but perhaps from a 21st Century point of view, less convinced. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What the Beer parlour discussion really shows, is that nobody cares much! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Yes, it is an declination form. --Ikatz 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"please don't give English lessons in Greek entries"[edit]

If it's appropriate to indicate an English translation of a foreign word as slang/vulgar I'm not sure why you think it inappropriate to label UK/US forms. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that we label the words themselves as vulgar, not the English translation. Anyway, I was just removing the non-Latin entries from Category:American English (and British English). You need to use {{qualifier|UK}} to avoid categorizing. My preference would be favor/favour or just favor as one entry links to the other anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK - I'am afraid I have probably added other non-Latin entries to such categories. I think that the qualifier is useful (my Greek-English) dictionary tells me which forms are appropriate on each side of the Atlantic. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 15:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess we just disagree then - nothing wrong with that! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

EEUU vs EE.UU.[edit]

Ok, mais il ne faut pas virer les liens (en espagnol en l'occurence c'est EE.UU.).

Je les remet en laissant la version EEUU, mais la typo EE.UU. ne contient pas d'espace. 14:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sauf si on peut l'attester. Ce n'est pas une question de ta préférence personnelle. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Je me basais juste sur le Wiktionary espagnol 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
En español, lo más adecuado de todo es EE. UU. Sin embargo, también es común encontrar EE.UU. e incluso EEUU. —Stephen (Talk) 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


You're going to remove something, because it doesn't exist in writing, but not remove the links to it? Tisk ;) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, forgot. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Gotta keep you on your toes :p — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

no fair[edit]

Godammit Gloves, it is difficult to be unnoticed. I'm doing lots of very useful work for WT and you go and accuse me of Wonderfolly. Wonderfool never did much citation-adding, and certainly didn't add Spanish (OK, actually, I think Keene was the resident Spanish-speaking Wonderfool). Looks like my best bet of sneaking adminship next year is through another account. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll have to learn Uzbek after all and add that here. p.s. keep up the therapy, I hope you believe it will work for you. I also hope we can meet up again sometime and chew the fat. Maybe do a bit of juggling and talk openly about "I have a big penis". Now, fingers on the buzzers to see who's the quickest to block me. --SixTwo 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd kept it pretty quite, it was only when you got nominated for whitelisting that I commented. I can't talk it back now, can I. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Curator Uro & Coerator Oro[edit]

Why do you remove coerator sister ??? Mag-Zen 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because you made an absolute mess. You don't seem to know which language you're editing - is it Latin, or English? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For Coerator is latin leave etymology & ipa prononciation please. And for English Curator you can deplace the english word to latin, rather than erase. Mag-Zen 15:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no etymology and the pronunciation is wrong, so why would I leave them? I'm not even sure q is used in IPA - should be /k/. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can i then add coerator related term in latin section of curator ??? Mag-Zen 15:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

VULGAR [wulʒar] LATIN [laθin] Mag-Zen 15:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You can add them. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tʰanks ! Mag-Zen 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

About phonetic [k] is modern pronounciation ancient used [q], because in latin Q is used only before vowel [U] in other case C is used and have two phônetic walor [g] or [q], besides the kyril letter Ҁ [q] have a C shape. C it's a strange letter and have many prononciation [s / ʦ, q / ʧ, ʤ / g, ʨ] in french, turkish, latin slavic (Ć, Č, C), also check Georgian [ʦ] or Egoptic [ʣ], also analyse Ellêniqo Ϟ Ϙ & Ϭ (Egoptic)... Mag-Zen 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's seems that the walue [k] came after byzantinë (ruman conqueror of Ellênic) adoption of Kappa instead of removed Qoppa [q]... The use of Q survived in Slavic until rewolution (1918 because of use of typewriter machine : Source), the sound ق (q) [q] is only used in Arabia. Someone or a society are trying to trouble comprehension of ancient text by removing letter, perhaps the Temple, Priests or Gods (Check Bible Gen 11-9). Nemzag (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please revert the coerator removed IPA ? Mag-Zen 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what to do with ipa ? Mag-Zen 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, I still think it's wrong, but add it back and we'll let someone else decide. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, someone removed coerator in Related terms of curator page, why ? Mag-Zen 09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's because they aren't related. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The English Curator have same definition with latin Coerator, so perhaps you could add the word in "related term", also you removed could you add a redirection to  ?. Agmzên 00:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not replying to anything you say unless you say something sensible. was speedy deleted as 'attack page or other personally identifiable info", and it shouldn't redirect, at the very least it is a translingual symbol. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

belated thanks for cleanup[edit]

As I check all the years-old entries on WT:RFC to see if they've been cleaned up or not, I notice that a lot of them were cleaned up by you. Belated thank you! — Beobach 19:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to think I did some and then got bored of it. Another amount was probably just by chance, as I tend to work for cleanup lists and change regularly to avoid excessive boredom. I guess a bit of boredom is ok, then. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Page updated[edit]

Thank you for improving my edits. I have updated the page (self-absorbed) a second time and I'd appreciate if you'd check it over. Thanks again. IRP 21:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded my edit to conform to the appropriate wording for adjectives. Please improve it if needed. Thanks again. -- IRP 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Hey! Do you think we can close this rfv? Leasnam 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three citations, but not great ones. The first one uses tocomis and -is isn't an English verb form ending, even in very Early Modern English (or is it?). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the one given by Ƿidsiþ. I wonder if it might be early Scots, yet in the same passage, burnes and slayes use "-es", so it may be simply due to variations in early orthography? Leasnam 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It's Scottish. Whether Scottish English or in the eye of the beholder I guess. In those days it would certainly have been thought of as Scots. Ƿidsiþ 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Would a qualifier such as (rare, chiefly Scotland) help, or does this need to be removed from English citation? Leasnam 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Shall I go on making these categories? There is no plural because if it said "Transliterations of personal names" they would be strictly speaking a POS categories, and the category names are long enough already. For discussion, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/June#Categories for transliterated names. Would you or somebody else be smart enough to create a template? --Makaokalani 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I haven't replied as I don't know what to say. Sorry about that. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Inflection templates - poll 3[edit]

You have voiced your opinion in some of the polls about renaming of categories for what was previously called "inflection templates", templates that are planned to be newly called "headword templates" or "headword-line templates" in the name of their category. I would like to hear your preference in the poll number 3, whatever your preference is, if you would be so kind: WT:BP#Poll: Inflection to inflection-line 3. Thank you for your input and attention. --Dan Polansky 10:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Runic? No, that's not Runic. It is a perfectly Latin letter, and used in several Latin manuscripts. -- Prince Kassad 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit odd then, as I wasn't able to view it until I installed a new font. I can revert, though, that still leaves the question of what the heck is it? Should have a translingual section as it's a single character. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was only pretty recently added to Unicode so support is still rare. I classified it as a pronoun but that might not be the best solution - maybe it should be rather an abbreviation? -- Prince Kassad 15:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

red ink[edit]

Maybe you would help me with another problem, if ur still up. When i created CTS, i attempted to expand the def. I got a lot of red ink. Before i could figure out what i had done wrong, someone deleted the expanded definition. I couldn't figure out how 2 look at the edit history, so i'm not sure who reverted it. I asked SemperBlotto, but all he said was that it's fixed. I'm working on a Nokia telephone, and it's slow-going, so i really, really like to understand my mistakes and not repeat them. I realize that all of you admin-types have more work than you can possibly ever finish, but i like to ask those who can give me the right answer the first time. Thank you for your time. Ragityman 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A red link means that the linked term doesn't yet have an entry. If you click it, you will be prompted to create one. We usually just link the expanded form from an abbreviation, and put all of the details and definition at the expanded form, rather than duplicating it on the abbrevation's page too. Equinox 12:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

pan bagnat[edit]

Hello, I've seen you work with French and Occitan, so can you provide an etymology for pan bagnat for me, please (banhat = wet, apparently)? Thanks. --Mat200 11:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if bagnar is a variant of banhar. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy additions --Mat200 11:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems you can't search Google Books in Occitan (but in Catalan, you can). Also there's no and no Occitan Wikisource. So I'm a bit f*cked. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it! Perhaps fucked is a slight exagerration (depending on how seriously you intend to take my initial casual request). --Mat200 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not the only time I've wanted to look for actually evidence of Occitan words, rather than just translating from oc: (which luckily, has some brilliant linguists for admins). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Here in the UK, I've only ever seen/eaten "Salad(e) Niçoise" in restaurants, never "Niçoise Salad". SemperBlotto 11:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


When you use "lang=ar" in either {{l}} or {{list}}, "sc=Arab" is implied. When you use both templates together with the same script, its formatting is called twice.

Apparently, one effect of using "sc=Arab" is making the text bigger. Your edit to Template:list:days of the week/ar caused some words to be even bigger. "sc=None" would fix that. --Daniel. 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese springs[edit]

Well, it says it comes from French here. User:DHN really knows his stuff regarding the Vietnamese language, and I guess L and R and interchangeable in many Asian tongues. 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an IPA would help. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


I don't know what AmeGOD is trying to do. "ɒ" doesn't exist in General American English, just a few New England accents. The "caught" vowel is traditionally transcribed with "ɔ".

And cot-caught ought to be labeled separately from American English, because as I said, it's standard in Canadian English, and a few dialects of Scottish and Irish English, so it should be labeled separately.

I don't want to be blocked, I enjoy contributing to Wiktionary, but I disagree very strongly with AmeGOD on this.--Dezzie 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it will come to that. Wasn't a threat so much as a choice me or another admin may have to face. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't there any place to discuss and let Wiktionarians vote on this, kinda like Wikipedia?--AmeGOD 10:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I think the Beer Parlour. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I presented my case.--AmeGOD 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


Please don't edit my user talk archives. Talking in something resembling English would also help. Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's just to complete what we talked before... Hope you readed. Gmazdên 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)