User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/13

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A potential change to the Arabic headline templates[edit]

So, I know that most languages use head= to define an alternative to the main pagename. I think it would be useful to change this for Arabic templates to wv=, like the Hebrew templates use. (I think it stands for with vowels, but you'd have to ask Ran to be 100% sure.) I mainly ask because I think it's kinda odd to have stuff like plhead and whatnot. What think ye? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course possible to have both, such as {{{wv|{{{head|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but don't you agree that it would be easier to work with one? wv just seems more logical to me, since plhead isn't the actual head or anything, and vowelling is the only reason that head or anything like that would be needed. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person to ask. Certainly I don't want head= removed from the templates if it's actually used, as it would instantly cause a loss of function. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do it the same way for Arabic, of course, but if you want to: the Hebrew templates support both wv= (for "with vowels", yes) and head=, the latter being for the case with linkified headword components (compare English head=[[give]] [[up]]). In terms of actual functionality, wv= and head= are generally equivalent, unless dwv= (for "defective, with vowels") is specified; I'm not sure if that applies to Arabic. The Hebrew templates don't support plhead=, because the entire plural is always a single link. —RuakhTALK 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

form-of tremplates[edit]

Please stop modifying these; see the GP discussion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sure, this last time this happened, things turned into a bit of a mess. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old users[edit]

Hi! I run my script for Drago and I found 6256 pages created by them! Take a look (here) if you're interested. Regards. --flyax 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit[edit]

Hi Mglovesfun,

I'm sorry to disturb you, but I kind of don't know who to turn to :-(

Since yesterday I've been unable to edit articles regardless of Wiktionary project. If I press "edit" on a page, no tool box appears. If I log out and try to edit articles anonymously, then it works.

Besides this the "recent changes" page keeps changing appearance.

Have I been banned, or do I have a bug on my computer? Has there been more reports of people experiencing the same problems?

Robbie SWE 10:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you have no blocks here, not ever. Plus you just edited now. Try perhaps WT:ID or WT:GP. I can't help, sorry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I edited without being able to use the tool box because it just isn't there and the tool box below (with the letters and symbols) doesn't work either. I'll try asking in the forums you mentioned. Best Regards Robbie SWE 10:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship[edit]

Would you like to be nominated for the bureaucrat position? I think that you would do wonderfully and you have my full support. TeleComNasSprVen 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really thought about it. Only if the community wants another bureacrat, which is possible since EncycloPetey left, there are now only two. In all honesty I'd probably nominate Ruakh, not myself. Or msh210. Both have been admins longer than me and they're both very cool-headed. They're both better with computing languages, regexps and things. I don't think I'd even be my own first choice. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

‘archaic or pretentious’[edit]

¶ Sir, why do you believe that etymological spellings are “pretentious” but communicating (in public discussions) by writing text‐message acronyms is totally acceptable? --Pilcrow 05:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is I believe no such thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Then have you ever considered usage of obscure letters—according to their alphabet—to be “pretentious”? --Pilcrow 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically consider Doremítzwr (talk • contribs) to be a bit of a point of view pusher, preferring obscure spellings to common ones, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to help readability. Pæninsula could be considered 'nonstandard' if it's not archaic, as contemporary English does not use ligatures. But if I add that, I imagine he'll remove it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I am not really certain how obscure forms are unhelpful for readability; do you (for example) conjecture that most viewërs could be confused to see a spelling like “præfer”, possibly assuming that the word is not related to prefer? Would some fonts not render such forms correctly? ¶ Plus: are you confident that W (w) and & are not ligatures in English? --Pilcrow 10:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think we don't want to use words like præfer in definitions of other words as it's not wholly obvious that it's a way of writing prefer; I think we certainly do want entries for these terms for the very same reasons. We shouldn't give the impression that pæninsula is standard English when it isn't. I suppose 'rare' help, I think 'pretentious' is probably justified too, as the writer has deliberately decided not to use the English spelling. 'Nonstandard' seems a bit odd in this situation, though, it is nonstandard. More nonstandard than something like lol which is widely understood, while, in my opinion, pæninsula is harder to understand as some people won't know the the Latin spelling was pæninsula. Also, regarding w and &, I couldn't care less. Again, etymologies are interesting, I like them, I read them, I write them, nevertheless they aren't part of the definition and I don't think we should be creeping towards a merge between definitions and etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on a bit, if you want to take the argument about etymological spellings further, you could say zakat is unetymological as it's written in the Latin script, while the original word in written in the Arabic script. Regarding Doremítzwr, I tried to choose my words carefully; I don't think he's a big POV pusher but I have witnessed it. It all comes down to my feeling we're very self-indulgent here; we're not user-centred, and I wish we were, even if the changes, I personally find less pleasing. I think a good first step would be for some users to come out and say 'hey, I'm not user centered, I'm just here to please myself'. I don't really mind that; we're all here of our own free will in our free time, but for Christ's sake let's not pretend we're trying to build a user-friendly dictionary; we aren't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Surely acronyms like “lol” could also be qualified as ‘pretentious’ since the writers are deliberately not spelling out the full forms? Today, it exists solely to make typing (an apparently cumbersome process) quicker by contracting three words into one “word”. I do not think it is considerate, and it is almost certainly not necessary. ¶ About understanding: do you think something like mdr is easier to recognize than Ethiopien? I do not think the meaning of an acronym is ever apparent at default. ¶ Lastly: “zakat” is most likely phonologically consistent with its Arabic counter‐part and I am not sure if the meaning ever contradicts the etymology. Is it dishonest to use different language scripts? ¶ You seem to have the impression that I am some sort of regressive. Perhaps I should start speaking in Proto‐Indo‐European, so your assumption can be validated. We all know how bad change is! --Pilcrow 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those assumptions aren't particularly valid as I wasn’t commenting on you in my previous paragraph. But in fairness, the last time I offered you a piece of advice on your talk page, you undid the edit, so I see no reason that you should listen to me on my own talk page. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have nothing to discuss. --Pilcrow 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Passed per overall majority"[edit]

[1] How so? There was no majority for keeping. I see two delete votes and two keep votes. -- Prince Kassad 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. That means we keep it AFAIK: while the edit summary is wrong, the keep is not.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because DCDuring expressed serious doubts without explicitely shouting delete, and to my knowledge, we do not just count votes. -- Prince Kassad 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: if you do insist on counting votes, I'll just unstrike the discussion and vote delete myself. Then, the next person will have to delete the entry, because now the majority is in favor of deletion. -- Prince Kassad 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should just count votes. DCD raised points against; Mg raised points in favor. There does not seem to be a clear majority either way by counting votes, and neither view seems to be clearly in line with the CFI. So I think it's a keeper. Just MHO. (But note that I personally think it should be deleted as SOP.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took note of some of the unbolded comments as well as just the bolded ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on vehicle.[edit]

Yes simple is good. And "any" of the vehicles is better than "One of the...". Maybe next time you might be able to spare us the sarcasm in your talk, but then I suppose humor makes it more fun. But not everyone can take a joke, and we end up with less people willing to be editors. Geof Bard 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What joke did I make? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani[edit]

Sure, OK. But I assume then my entry was consequently deleted… so, uh, what was the word again? Do you remember/have a way of finding out? —Wiki Wikardo 19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your only deleted edit in the main namespace is ishq, does this help? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

botdefect[edit]

[2] It seems to be replacing "i" with "qualifier|", adding an extra |, and it adds a wonky random-looking comma to the note thingy. I think it's been doing this for quite a while now... — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my eye sight actually; seems you can't zoom in on AWB so a lot of the time I can't read what I've written. It's a real pain actually. Luckily this one is pretty easy to fix, I haven't always been so lucky in the past. The extra comma is because of the blank first parameter ({{qualifier||) --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the regular expression on the 16th of May (two days). Oddly, it still looks right to me but clearly it isn't. So the number of entries to correct is probably not more than 20. I've found all of five so far, all from May 16, out of about 8000 that the bot has checked. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I knew the cause of the extra comma. I was pointing it out because it's how I noticed something was wrong. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah I get it now, what a silly error. Fixed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit at robots[edit]

[3] Something seems to be wrong with that template. I do not understand Spanish, so i cannot fix it. (this is your edit from february 2010) -Yyy 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was one vertical bar too many. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think a little?[edit]

I am amazed by your appalling attitude. I will advise against the cross-linking of Greek and Latin words in the etymologies of biological names. --Squidonius 00:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd watch the words I used around here. Some of us bite back and don't let go. Tread lightly. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors will confirm that by my standards this was a very diplomatic way of putting it. What I really wanted to say is stop breaking things, WT:BLOCK says "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary." So it is within an administrator's rights to block an editor who is harming Wiktionary pages unintentionally, it's just an option I personally try and avoid. But in the end, harm is harm. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Languedocian & Limousin(e) Occitan categories[edit]

Hi, following your suggestion about {{Provence}}, I mentioned Languedocian Occitan and the Languedoc-Roussillon region as my next stop for making a template; and I'm also considering Limousin(e) Occitan in the category ranks. Should I use Languedoc for short on the Languedocian Occitan category? How about using the final letter e for the Limousin(e) Occitan cateogry? Thanks. --Lo Ximiendo 03:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'norm' is to use the most common name in English. Whatever that is. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the hypothetical templates {{Languedoc}} and {{Limousin}} okay? Any suggested changes to them? I'm making these two for lesser bytes. --Lo Ximiendo 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia agrees with you, so I agree too. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xonique[edit]

¶ Considering that user account is essentially an alternative account at this point, I do not see use in keeping either the user‐page or talk‐page. It is clearly obsolete ¶ Surely it is possible to ‘merge’ accounts on this website? --Pilcrow 10:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Equinox; the account has contributions deleting these pages will turn the blue links in page histories into red links. And the information is accurate. I think it should be his decision. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic[edit]

Hi, Mglovesfun. Maybe you're interested: if I'm working with Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic, I use [4] to transliterate Roman SC text. Then you don't have to 'chicken out', nor does it require manually typing the Cyrillic. It transliterates the Roman digraphs correctly (but it fails to transliterate accented vowels). --JorisvS 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I also don't mind tagging my edits with {{attention|sh}} though I'm mainly jut recycling the information already in the entries, unless there's a Roman spelling with no Cyrillic spelling when I add one myself. If I'm unsure that I'm right I try Wikipedia, as often there's a Serbian and a Croatian/Bosnian article for something where the word is the same (but in Cyrillic for Serbian). --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tag them because often these non-unified entries still lack certain things (like tone or declension) and sometimes a word may be specific to one variety (which will typically not be clear from what we find). Our native-SC editors can then more easily supply these things. --JorisvS 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it worth going to the Beer Parlour regarding unified Serbo-Croatian. Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are still valid, occasionally IP editors add translations into them though I haven't seen a new entry in these languages for literally a few months. I say this because {{sr-proper noun}} is now orphaned, also {{bs-noun}}, and we really ought to delete them outright. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen a number of new non-IP "Croatian" translations (check out [5]). I agree with you that we should delete these outright, but I don't care much. --JorisvS 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think when there's a consensus, enshrining it in some sort of 'law' doesn't achieve much. The problem might come if we ever get far enough to move {{bs}}, {{hr}} and {{sr}} to {{etyl:bs}}, {{etyl:hr}} and {{etyl:sr}} which is what has happened with {{hbo}}, {{xtg}} and {{xcg}} (WT:ACEL-GAU). --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note... there is currently a discussion in BP about removing prefixes like etyl: from language templates. —CodeCat 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rather than a vote, nominate Category:Bosnian language and the two others for deletion. This is what happened with Category:Flemish language, which failed, just there's no decision on what to do with its entries, so the category remains for now. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:suffix[edit]

¶ How could this re‐direct be considered “patent nonsense”? Am I incorrect to assume it saves up slightly more memory? ¶ Regardless, I guess you are goïng to delete my other template redirections for no reasons you will bother to explain in detail? --Pilcrow 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn and for a while I thought you were gonna disappoint me. Let's put it this way, when other editors make a bad edit, they usual keep quiet about it. You're the complete opposite, you seem to highlight your bad edits as much as possible. Let's put it this way; Wiktionary, as fun as it is, is not here for your amusement. It's a dictionary project. Things that don't add anything to the dictionary (apart from some user stuff, and you should know better than anyone else we have limits for that too) get deleted. I don't need to explain in detail, you already understand. As it happens the last time I gave you a word of advice you undid my edit anyway, so I feel a little less patient towards you. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is probably vandalism; also coeditors isn't editors prefixed with co-, it's the plural of coeditor. Only giving you a short block because of previous good work. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get really clever, why not mix scripts? Instead {{wikipedia}}, how about {{wikipediа}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffroi?[edit]

This is what I tell people that my name is when I'm in France. I see that we only have Geoffroy. Which is correct? (p.s. Goffredo when in Italy) SemperBlotto 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A (very) quick Wikipedia search suggests this is the Old French form - the first one I came across was w:fr:Geoffroi de Villehardouin, born "circa 1150". French Wiktionary isn't as big on given names and surnames as we are, so that's not a particularly useful source either. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one we have is Gefrei in Old French. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wace[edit]

Reading about Wace, born in Jersey, educated in France. Wouldn't he be writing in Old French rather than Anglo-Norman then? Ah but then the specific choice of spelling is down to the scribe not the original author. Sigh. And this is why I'd like to merge Anglo-Norman and Old French. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2[edit]

Martin. My proposal only adds one category and thus one more level, by branching the foreign language categories. I don't see the split in three you mentioned. As far as I can tell, the only draw-back is that the English categories will be two levels above the foreign language ones rather than just one. Even if we decide to add "English" in some form, we probably need to add that level anyway, or the top level categories will be useless. So it really just about adding "en" or not.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the only draw-back is that the English categories will be two levels above the foreign language ones rather than just one." Well, that's three in total isn't it? That's what I'm talking about, three. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I thought you meant I was splitting one cat into three. Anyway I think it will happen no matter what solution we choose.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I may add something here... Right now the structure of the 'umbrella' categories strongly mimics those of the categories within the languages (ignoring English for the moment). Category:Communication contains Category:Language just like Category:nl:Communication contains Category:nl:Language. However, because the current practice is that Category:Communication also contains Category:nl:Communication, it gets very messy. But there is another solution that is already used in practice for most other category trees. Category:English nouns contains Category:English proper nouns, and the former is in Category:Nouns by language while the latter is in Category:Proper nouns by language. However, the difference is that Category:Nouns by language does not contain Category:Proper nouns by language. Instead, both categories are contained side by side in Category:All parts of speech. So if we were to apply this to the topical tree, then Category:Communication would not contain Category:Language, but both categories would go in Category:All topics side by side. The 'tree' essentially 'gets flattened' out at the languageless level, but individual languages still have trees. —CodeCat 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case; I'd prefer a "flattened" Topic by language as top-level, with Topic (no :en:) among the foreign language Topic categories, each containing parallel trees.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leo, your solution does contain three levels, just one of the levels exists purely to contain the next level down. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, CodeCat wants:
  • "All topics" (flattened) -> "Some Topic" -> "en:Some Topic", "xx:Some Topic"
whereas I prefer:
  1. "All topics" (flattened) -> "Some Topic by language" -> "Some Topic", "xx:Some Topic", or the aforementioned solution
  2. "All topics" -> "Some Topic" -> "Some Topic by language" -> "xx:Some Topic",
The second solution, as previously discussed, does contain an extra, rather superfluous level, but the first seems to me to equal CodeCat's proposal.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

explanation[edit]

Would you please consider entitling my feeble, inferior mind with an explanation behind this edit which you gifted this website with, good sir? --Pilcrow 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds, it's not breaking any rules and it's not inappropriate. In a nutshell, like. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really takes up a lot of time to delete these you know. It essentially means I can't do anything else whil you're doing this. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On your user page:
Areas of interest
Deleting pages that shouldn't be here.

Do you need to revise that? --Pilcrow 11:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the thing is, until you came along, I, perhaps with the exception of DCDuring (talk • contribs), was the most deletionist user on the whole wiki. You're about 100% more deletionist than I am. The issues are
  1. Some of the pages you're nominating might not have any 'usable content', but they're not really breaking any rules
  2. Most of these pages have few, usually no incoming links, deleting an orphan page doesn't achieve much
  3. You need an administrator to follow you round and make a decision on all of these, and the decision can't always be the same as your decision.
Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather sure that pages consisting of unusable content was actually against policy, as that seems to be a common pattern among pages that are deleted. Although I would not mind deleting the pages myself, I am still assuming you hate me and would never want me to administrate, let alone contribute. I am scared to ask you anything. --Pilcrow 11:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think I 'hate' anyone. There are some users I clash with more than others because our ideologies are quite different. I've certainly clashed with Ruakh a few times, Daniel C, Dan P and to a lesser extent DCDuring. 'Hatred' has nothing to do with it, it's political, it's all about negociation. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lassie[edit]

I didn't notice that. Thanks. --Daniel 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating derivations categories[edit]

Maybe it's better to wait for the outcome of this vote before creating more derivations categories. They may all have to be deleted again otherwise. —CodeCat 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, maybe, but maybe not. The current system is valid until it becomes invalid. A bit like creating a plural for an RFD'd entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling enhancements.[edit]

Hi Mglovesfun,

FYI, I've moved the patrolling enhancements to MediaWiki:Gadget-PatrollingEnhancements.js. I don't think that importScript works with redirects, so I guess you'll have to update your vector.js.

The new version can be added via Wiktionary:Preferences, via Special:Preferences (in the "Gadgets" tab), or by modifying Special:MyPage/vector.js or whatnot (like you're doing now).

Please let me know if you encounter any problems.

Thanks,
—RuakhTALK
20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language name to code[edit]

I've begun creating the other subtemplates for converting language names to codes. I think that means your own template isn't needed anymore, because it's a lot slower. —CodeCat 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends; that one is specifically for MglovesfunBot AWB edits. It's used for things like {{ttbc|French}} → {{ttbc|fr}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still pretty much redundant now, though. You can use {{ttbc|{{subst:langrev|French}}}} instead. —CodeCat 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Do you have any idea of how to and/or are you willing to create a bot task to update any macron changes to Latin words at the lemma? It just seems ridiculous to suggest that all form entries need to be manually updated. I don't know if SemperBlotto has had any thoughts on this, though he did see he was logging any bot errors made in the past. Another problem is that many verbs have been changed from having a passive to the no-passive template; I presume that this definitely has to be manually fixed (though I don't know if mass delete will help or what it even does)? Caladon 11:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say put a detailed description on the Grease Pit, you'll probably need a more experienced bot operator than me to do it. I suspect it will vary per entry; if one Latin verb has a macron added (on say, the first vowel) then all the verb forms need an extra macron. That's not too difficult. But you'd have to set the bot up individually for every verb. If you explain the task in more detail, I'm happy to at least consider it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Nuke wouldn't help. It allows you to delete all the pages created by a user. Can you can de-select pages you don't want to be deleted, but in the case of SemperBlottoBot, you'd have to de-select something like 100 000 entries! --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improperness.[edit]

Hello Mglovesfun,

What was exactly improper about my user page? If I may know. Thanks in advance. Yours truly, -- Bugoslav 13:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from the deletion log:

  • June 2, 2011 at 13:01:59 (UTC) Mglovesfun (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Bugoslav" ‎ (Improper use of user or user talk page)

Please make me a copy of my user page and place it on → User:Bugoslav/Improper. This way we could all see what was improper. Thanks again. -- Bugoslav 13:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just contained 'hi' with no other content. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please return my user page. There is nothing improper about saying hello. -- Bugoslav 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:USER says "should be constructive toward the goals of Wiktionary." Why not simply recreate it with some content? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please return my user page since it is not improper. The deletion log should be set right. -- Bugoslav 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just gonna ignore me I'm not gonna bother replying. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deep down, you already knew he was the type to ignore anything anyone says. :) — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That smiley at the end was pure malice. But there is one that is pure evil: :-) ;-) :-) --Biblbroks дискашн 20:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I drink at least a glass of malice every morning upon waking. Wanna see my fangz? ^*^ — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it drunk in the morning to keep the fangz growing controllably? I assume evenings for example wouldn't function, huh? I keep my fangz hidden because I need no such show - not in advance. Thus effect is greater. Imagine the reputation that follows those hidden thingies. :-) Now this was also constructive, because I showed you a better way. Haven't I? ;-) --Biblbroks дискашн 10:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stay on topic a bit, chaps? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Staying a bit on topic: would a userpage with the word content as the content be against WT:USER? Or is this lying under the topic? ;-) --Biblbroks дискашн 22:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although this user is not exactly the most constructive editor, he does have some halfway-legitimate contributions, and there was nothing actually wrong with his user-page. I think it should be restored. (I won't restore it myself, though, if no other administrator agrees with me.) —RuakhTALK 02:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The owner requested the page to be restored; so I think it should be. My own user page is not much bigger than that... --Daniel 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

range block on User:123abc[edit]

Hi, I need help applying a range block for User:123abc who as you probably know has been abusing multiple accounts over the past six months. See User_talk:Atitarev#User:123abc_back for more info. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 12:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna talk to you about this, incidentally. Can it work? We've range blocked before and it's failed. There's no reason to do it if it can't work. Also, have you seen the Chinese character discussion on the Beer Parlour? Some actual Chinese speakers might prove useful. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the last range block worked just fine. He couldn't edit for a number of months. Perhaps the range block wasn't applied for long enough, but either way it got him off the system for a considerable amount of time. Now we need to apply it again. ---> Tooironic 12:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how; you asked me this once before, and I directed you to msh210, as he's the only user I've ever seen do a range block. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks I'll ask him. ---> Tooironic 22:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Milestones[edit]

Hi there. Before it gets too difficult, would you like to have a look at the latest part of its talk page, and then do whatever you think best. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, don't we just 'give it' to whoever creates it, human or troll or what? The question for me is how to work out which one it was. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the past (documentation unavailable) we have ignored bots and given it to the nearest human being pour encourager les autres. SemperBlotto 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full story:- I had noticed we were getting near two and a half million so I started up the bot (French verb conjugations) and waited to pounce with an Italian word. WF was doing the same and beat me to it. I have awarded him the prize. SemperBlotto 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if it fails RFD? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing? One of the first listed milestones is a Toki Pona word (which we no longer include), so having a redlink as a milestone should not be an issue. -- Prince Kassad 13:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

лезть в бутылку[edit]

That deleted page is actually a Russian idiom. --Lo Ximiendo 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page had no usable content. If there is a Russian idiom лезть в бутылку (leztʹ v butylku), feel free to create an entry for it, but that page wasn't it. —RuakhTALK 15:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page was empty, btw fr:лезть в бутылку seems to show it means 'to get upset/angry'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syriac[edit]

I have also discovered that they are identical too late unfortunately. It might be a good idea to remove/redirect the template I created and copy/paste its documentation.--Rafy 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new to wiktionary, I will have to take a look at the policies.--Rafy 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have so many "policies", it would really just be easier to ask for help. Get like a sponsor or something lol — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; the fact that you're willing to communicate is big help. The 'problem' is when new users refuse to ask for or to take on board advice. See for example Category:Syriac nouns. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks. I have a question... Why does the Arabic template work while the Syriac doesn't? I have tried the following language codes:sy, syr, syc, syrc, to no avail.
Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "syr" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.
ܐܲܢ݇ܬܝ (’āti)
--Rafy 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complicated answer, but I think what you want is this:
{{l|syc|ܐܢܬܝ|ܐܲܢ݇ܬܝ|tr=’āti|sc=Syrc}}
— [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you have to declare the source explicitly which, however, renders the "language code" redundant. Is it because there is no language code designated for Syriac in the main css, or does it have to do with the "l" template?--Rafy 18:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see what isn't working. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess was the script template. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 21:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is happening because {{Xyzy}} doesn't contain the code for Syriac. But that template is deprecated anyway, and there's currently a vote on a replacement, which should make it redundant to have to specify the script explicitly like it is here. —CodeCat 21:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maudire[edit]

Hey Martin, I'm not sure of all the stuff you do with your bot but a bunch of the forms of maudire are missing parts of their pronunciations, like maudissais. I wonder if wonderfool did it on purpose lol... — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 23:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SemperBlottoBot does French verb forms now, but this one is irregular enough that it would be quicker to do it by hand than write a script for it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait I misread, the pronunciation is bogus. Err, yeah. Should be fixable, it'll be quicker with AWB. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Norman[edit]

Come to think of it, it might be in the Roman de Brut, at some point I'll find a copy of that on Google Books or Project Gutenburg. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

an enquiry[edit]

Are you mad at me? --Pilcrow 22:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Out of interest, why would I be? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like I un‐intentionally irritate you nearly every time we communicate. --Pilcrow 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. But so what? I'd rather you speak your mind than turn into a mindless yes man. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old English plurals[edit]

Ideally, we shouldn't really use {{plural of}} for inflected languages at all. It doesn't specify the case, so it's not really useful. —CodeCat 11:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; it just saved me a few minutes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:CodeCat/affix categories[edit]

Could you help with these categories, especially the English and French ones? Not all of them should be created, so they need someone with good knowledge of the language to filter out the ones that are wrong. Thank you! —CodeCat 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me to nominate my own English entry fr:-ifier for deletion on the French Wiktionary. A lot of these categories, the wrong ones, were added by me back in 2009. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saints names.[edit]

I have moved this discussion to the Beer Parlour to get a wider input.--Dmol 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally random d'accord questions[edit]

So, how do you express "with" with the phrase d'accord? Like in, "I agree with you" and "I agree with the idea that blablabla"? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avec, je suis d'accord avec vous / avec ça. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks :) — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 22:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shíyóu[edit]

Pinyin entries are allowed and shíyóu is attested (google books:shíyóu), but why was it deleted by Anatoli? Engirst 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really editing here right now, but you are right; it is well enough attested to at the very least merit an RFV, but not speedy deletion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with your bot[edit]

Your bot seems to have added the prefix to some categories that it shouldn't have added it to:

List

—CodeCat 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, forgot about that. Stopped the bot, luckily shouldn't be too hard to reverse the edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found more:
List

—CodeCat 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I have 20 minutes before I have to get changed, might be enough to fix some of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at shuō Cáo Cāo, Cáo Cāo dào. That's actually the template {{idiomatic}} causing the problem, the bot isn't in the page history. But I will (of course) fix these. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, lots of these aren't me. Naturally, only the ones with written categories are MglovesfunBot mistakes; the rest are template generated, and I removed all main namespace entries before starting. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for some of them, the bot checks if the first word is a valid language; so something like Old High German won't pass, as it just checks the Old, hence the errors. Luckily the process is so slow, the bot has only done 2132 entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of those, apart from some like Category:en:Cockney rhyming slang which is down to {{context}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually just the xxx derivations categories that need doing now. Anything else should get picked up by Special:WantedCategories, whenever that next refreshes itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the 'bad' categories are because of the use of topcat instead of cat inside the context labels. See my change to {{British slang}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on reducing the wanted categories, that's how I found these. I've been very careful not to create categories that might have wrong names. Right now I'm fixing a lot of topical categories that had their language set to 'en' even though they were 'top level' categories with no language (although they used to be for English). Since the split, these have become wrongly categorised as well. —CodeCat 11:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's months of work here to be honest, yeah. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've already fixed them now. I temporarily edited {{topic cat}} so that it would categorise in a temporary category if the language was 'en', and then I used a bot to fix all categories in that category that didn't begin with en:. —CodeCat 12:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But trying to add en: to all the individual overtly written categories, that's what I'm thinking of. I meant 'months of work' referring to the whole reform of the category which has happened in the last month. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will take a while, yes. It's a shame there is no easy way to find out which out of a list of categories contain entries and which only contain categories. —CodeCat 12:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering that too, the PAGESINCAT magic word doesn't distinguish between page types, does it? So that's no help. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is also a limit on that. I've also noticed that {{topic cat}} is older and doesn't check whether the category it is used in is actually the right one. Because we renamed proto-language codes, all the Proto-Germanic topical categories now have wrong names (starting with gem: instead of gem-pro:), but I don't think there is an easy way to find them. I've been working on a replacement template that is based on {{catboiler}}, which does check the name. It's called {{topiccatboiler}} for now. —CodeCat 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the miscategorized entries[edit]

I've just doing them individually for now, such as all the namespace 0 entries in Category:Plants to Category:en:Plants. It will obviously work eventually, if I can track down all the topical categories. Some such categories don't even use {{topic cat}}, which will make them much harder to find. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea that might work. PAGESINCAT doesn't distinguish between entries and categories, but the category list of each category does. Maybe you could temporarily edit {{topic cat}} so that it adds categories with no prefix to a temporary category. And then you can just look at the temporary category and see if there are any categories that don't have (..., 0 e) after them. —CodeCat 19:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work. It is rather tedious and inefficient to migrate all the entries individually, but I don't see a robust way of doing it otherwise. There are categories that don't start with either a language code or a language name that aren't topical. So far finding categories isn't a problem; it's the sheer number that's the problem. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the templates a bit so it now puts all top-level categories into a single category as well. Category:List of topics —CodeCat 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if the server has updated the full list, but based on the current list, just over 1000, some of which will be deleted (like Latin derivations). Am now going through all the xxx derivations categories by bot; hopefully the bot won't make many errors; I've told it to skip Category:Biblical derivations that is, not turn it into Category:English terms derived from Biblical. I suspect it will make some errors, but it will be quicker to do the whole lot and reverse a few dozen edits than to make a few thousand individual edits! --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some others that shouldn't be changed either: Category:Fictional derivations and its subcategories. —CodeCat 13:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, will be quicker to revert the bot when it's finished than to avoid changing them at all. A sort of 'voluntary bug' if you like. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm heading out now - I put the list of entries here, the Simpsons one's have been corrected, cannot currently locate any other problem entries. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the categories that don't have {{topic cat}}... Nadando just made this list. —CodeCat 19:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flubot has taken on the task now. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, for the ones that use {{topic cat}}, anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abonnir[edit]

Please check whether abonnir needs so many contexts. It's the only entry that calls ten or more context templates at once. --Daniel 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just simplified it a bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian crap[edit]

Do you know offhand how hard it would be for a bot to go through each Romanian entry and switch all the ş and ţ between ==Romanian== and the next ---- to ș and ț? The half-finished state of this is threatening my sanity. I think most if not all the page-titles are fixed, but there's still a huge problem of the comma-characters being used in declension and conjugation templates, headwords for forms-of, example sentences, related terms, etc... It should be simple for a bot if the 'between ==Romanian== and ----" is specified, right? But I don't know how to write that. Or the switch part. lol — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got slightly the wrong idea; I only really do simple find and replace things using AWB. I can now do some regular expressions too. FWIW what you're proposing is possible, as AutoFormat can do it, but I don't know if it can be done using regular expressions. If it can, and someone can write such an expression for me, I will run it gladly. Oh and I don't think the bot can do page moves with AWB, and if it can, I don't know how. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured single letters would be pretty simple :D Didn't Ullmann run AutoFormat... and now Kassad runs it? I know one of them ran it to replace a bunch of single characters in IPA templates, so I know it's possible but most of the people who are good with that sort of thing are people who don't talk to me, or with whom I have trouble talking lol.
I don't think any more page moves will be necessary, I think Flyax did all that. They just left all the instances within the actual entries. Or most of them. But yeah, I haven't seen any comma-characters in page titles in quite a while.— [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The only problem in changing text with cedillas inside Romanian entries is the possibility of accidentally changing a Turkish word, something more likely to happen inside etymology sections. I could prepare a script that would change everything except etymologies. Is it ok? Or should I add other exceptions as well? --flyax 16:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why he wrote "between ==Romanian== and the next ----". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is the possibility that a Romanian word derives from a Turkish one. Anyway, have a look at Special:Contributions/Flubot. --flyax 18:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could've just added {{attention|tr}} to entries where "Turkish" or {{etyl|tr|ro}} appeared in a ==Romanian section==, but I see you've already started the bot. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 23:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Romanian_cedillas_again. --flyax 21:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coincât et al[edit]

Hi, there's some more erroneous forms needin' deletin' at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/coincer --Dilated pupils 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove a link to a valid form[edit]

I have given the reason on this page. Please feel free to take part in the discussion, for I think it is an important issue for the language.Dakhart 19:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maudire (2)[edit]

Note to self, see #maudire. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Can you do some housekeeping? See here. Just tick him off as done please. -- PoliMaster talk/spy 09:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. :-) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 10:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you go onto IRC? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 10:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, yes, but to be honest nobody goes on there anymore, which is a pity. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you got to revert User:217.39.9.193 before I got a chance! Would've been quicker if I had rollback. 8-/ -- PoliMaster talk/spy 11:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you tick this off as done aswell? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but so could you. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, I thought there was something official about an admin doing it. -- PoliMaster talk/spy 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you. :-) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 14:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

127.0.0.1[edit]

Regarding the RFD discussion: have you thought about it more? It seems hung. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate for plurals[edit]

There is no boilerplate for 'Low German plurals', but there is one for 'Low German noun plural forms'. —CodeCat 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Mglovesfun, would you please reply to me at the Beer Parlour? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your behavior is verging on harassment. Mglovesfun explicitly wrote that your exclusive interest in vandalism-fighting was "Not 'bad' or 'negative', just a bit 'odd'", yet you felt the need to write back an explanation ending, "Hope this is OK?"; O.K., fine, whatever. After less than two hours, you apparently grew impatient, and notified Mglovesfun here that you had replied there; O.K., fine, whatever. Now you're adding a new comment here asking him to reply to your reply there — and here, I think you're going overboard. If he had wanted to reply, he would have replied when he saw your comment at the BP, or failing that, when he saw your comment here. I understand that it can be frustrating to have a question left "up in the air" like that, and thank you for at least being polite; but he really already answered your question, and I don't know what more you want him to say. —RuakhTALK 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been addressed at [[template talk:en-adj#rarely comparable]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

r[edit]

response, my page. kwami 21:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ditto. kwami 01:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

naebody[edit]

Surely this term is chiefly in Scottish dialect, if not an actual Scots word? I do not understand how I could have “broke” an entry.

Please do not swear at me. --Pilcrow 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You categorized it as English. I have no idea what the difference between Scots and English is, but the categories and header either be all Scots or all English. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not something I consciously choose. In any case: I will add section for Scots if you will not protest. --Pilcrow 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I couldn't care less. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/13&oldid=36755083"