User talk:Peter Isotalo

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to add any comments as long as you abide by a few simple rules:
  • Don't break up threads. Reply wherever I made the post and expect me to do the same.
  • Don't hack up other users' threads. First time I reformat for you. Second time I ignore it. Third time I remove your post altogether. (I'm not kidding.)
  • Don't make duplicate posts. Leave a notice if you feel that you've been ignored.
  • Stay civil. I don't keep purely inflammatory posts


santorum[edit]

Hello,

I locked the entry at santorum down as it matched the pattern of a recent vandal. I shall unprotect it for today, to allow you to enter the "proper" definition, then relock it. The previous entry was as ridiculous as it was vulgar; as bad as something you'd expect on the site urbandictionary. Enjoy. --Connel MacKenzie 1 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Template:IPA[edit]

Hi, welcome to Wiktionary.

I see you made a change to the "IPA" template. I understand your point and have replied to it on the discussion page for the template. However, the template is currently only used in the pronunciation section of an entry, and never "inline" as you suggest it could be. I have therefore rolled back your change. If we implement what you are suggesting, it will mean updating the hundreds of pages that already use the template to add the text "IPA" - a lot of unnecessary work, in my view. If you would like an alternative template for inline IPA transcriptions, by all means provide one, but this template works just fine as it is. Note that the same applies to the AHD and SAMPA templates, which I noticed you have not changed.

If you think that we should make the change you are suggesting, please raise it in the beer parlour where it can be discussed. — Paul G 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also replied on Template_talk:IPA. I think you may want to use Template:IPAchar. Cheers. — Vildricianus 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Whadda...? Hundreds of articles? Where are you seeing these? All the templates mentioned in the discussion (including the AHD-and SAMPA-templates) link to little over 100 pages between them as far as I can see. That's about 30 minutes worth of routine work, I'd say.
Karmosin 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Inflections on the page fet[edit]

Why did you replace

{{sv-adj-reg|fet|fett|fet}}

with

'''fet, -are, -ast'''

I guess you thought that the box was to large. However, templates can be changed and all pages that use them will change as well so removing them is not a good idea.

If you have any better ideas on how they should look like I'm intrested in discussing it on the talk page of Wiktionary:Swedish inflection templates --Patrik Stridvall 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Adjectival nouns[edit]

In a change to page rött you claimed that:

"adjectival nouns" are adjectives without nouns, not nouns

Well, that is a matter of definition. However, the thing is that they do inflect partly like nouns and they are used where nouns are normally used. For example: "Blått är rötts motsats." (= "Blue is the opposite of red."). In this case rött is in the genitive case like it was a noun.

The point is that they do have inflections separate from the adjective "röd" and these inflection need to be shown somewhere. Whether we call them nouns or not I don't care.

Futhermore we have a policy that says that we don't use redirections in the main namespace. Regardless of whether "rött" is a noun or not it is an indefinite neuter adjective form and as such it should have a separate page. Please fix the page. --Patrik Stridvall 09:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What you call "adjectival nouns" are what Swedish linguists would call substantiverade adjektiv.
Yes. --Patrik Stridvall 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
All the inflections in the tables with the exception of the genitive are inflections of the adjectives, not any kind of noun. Adjectives can be used similar to nouns, but it always assumes that you have somehow mentioned or become aware of the described noun previously, which makes it an exception that is hardly motivated to create a new category for.
It primarily for showing and providing links for the genitive inflections that normal adjectives can't have. Whether you call them nouns or adjectives I don't really care. I applied the duck rule. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck." --Patrik Stridvall 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Who the Devil came up with the idea of banning redirects in a wiki? Please direct me to this policy page so I can see the motivation for this.
Karmosin 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There are unfortunately not that much written policy here. Look in the Beer Parlour for discussions about it. However, it is not so much a ban of redirects as a policy that every inflection should have a page of it own. Which makes it sort of hard of do redirects without violating that policy. --Patrik Stridvall 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon me for tagging onto your user talk page conversation, but there are a couple things I'd like to add to the above comments. Redirects are used in the main namespace, but only for redirecting alternate forms of idioms, and case-sensitive navigatation assistance. Redirects are never used for incorrect spellings, as the person looking up a word would have little or no indication that they spelled it wrong. Redirects are not used for inflected forms, as the inflections have different pronunciation, translations, etc. A relatively recent discussion is here. The original proponents of deleting all redirects (with no exceptions whatsoever) are primarily contributors to other language (i.e. infrequently on en:) Wiktionaries. As interwiki links go back and forth between languages, redirects complicate matters. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of having a separate article instead of a redirect for, say, rövarnas ("the robbers'") if all the valid info is available under rövare already? And to link it from the dictionary form no less. As an end user, I would find it terribly annoying to be provided with links to pages that contain absolutely no additional information I haven't already found in the article it was linked from. Why would anyone want to follow these links? And I don't see how it would be confusing to be redirected to the dictionary form if there's information (grammar tables, etc) that have explained inflection in the main article.
Peter Isotalo 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What if some word with the same spelling exists in some some other language?
  • What if some inflected form have an alternative spelling?
  • Where should we put the pronounication and the rhymes of the inflected forms?
  • Where should we put the homophones of the inflected forms?
  • Where should we put the anagrams of the inflected forms?
--Patrik Stridvall 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Where there actually is additional (relevant) information to be inserted, we should do it. No one has said we should make redirects from fine to fin just because it's an inflection in Swedish.
  • The main problem with a redirect is that it carries too little information. It will be very hard for a bot to know what to do with a redirected page when it want to insert some information there. Actually it hard even for a human to know what to do since most human don't know Swedish inflection rules. If the redirect points to a multilanguage page it will be harder still. So what will happend is that the redirection will be removed and people searching for the inflected form will never find it. --Patrik Stridvall 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Alernate spellings are easily handled by informing of the alternative spelling in the main article. There are very few words that have two equally acceptable orthographic forms and not all that many that have more than one spelling that isn't just mildly colloquial. Listing all possible forms where -d, -r, -e-, etc. can be left out in internet chat and such is neither practical nor useful to anyone.
  • In Swedish, true. Still, other languages can have alternatives for various reasons. English in particular have different spelling in American and British English for some words. And yes that includes inflections. Example traveled and travelled. Having the same policy for all languages as far it is reasonably possible is a good thing. --Patrik Stridvall 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pronunciation of inflections is highly predictable and should be summarized in an appendix. I'm not in a million years going to describe the pronunciation of every possible inflection of every possible word.
  • I'm not asking you to. That job is for bots. See below. --Patrik Stridvall 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Anagrams are pure unadultarated trivia as far as I'm concerned. It belongs in a Wikibook or something. Listing homophones of a foreign language inflection here seems like the most excellent way of cluttering up articles beyond usefulness. What next? Near homophones? Palindromes? Spoonerisms? Words that begin with the same first, second or third syllables?
  • Foreign languages? We are multilingual. Sure we have definitions and translations in English, however that doesn't make a Swedish word any less homophone with respect to another Swedish word.
  • As for the anagrams and similar things I don't really plan to add any, still there is no reason to have a blanket ban on them. Each category needs a seperate decition though. As it is anagrams are currently permitted. --Patrik Stridvall 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The amount of information you're asking for is over-ambitious beyond all practical use or need. Unless you're willing to do most of this very zealous work on your own, don't expect others do it for you.
As I said earlier, it was not I that decided the policy. Still, I do agree with it for the reasons that I have given. Futhermore, I expect much of the grunt work to be done by bots not humans. As you said, there are obvious rules to follow. That is what bots are for. --Patrik Stridvall 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing with människa and människor?[edit]

  • Almost all entries you removed are from SAOL (Svenska Akademiens ordlista) so they are in some meaning offical Swedish words not just some odd words I found somewhere.
  • There is no offical header ====Compounds====. While, I'm not convinced of the need I not against it. However it should be discussed first at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained.
  • While perhaps "mostly hairless primate" was a bit excessive it is actually from the definition of human being. But perhaps you meant it was redundant since the word människa means exactly the same as human being in every sense of the word?
  • As for the indefinite plural form människor. Well, as I have explain we have a policy that we should have all inflections. This is especially useful for common words like människa.

--Patrik Stridvall 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed what seemed either superfluous or downright awkward. I don't see the point of filling an article on a Swedish word to the brim with links to words that aren't particularly useful or common, at least not as a start. But do re-add them if you feel they're helpful.
  • "Dervied terms" seems to be a blanket term adapted for English, which has a much less clear distinction between compounds, derivations and simple common combinations of words. This is not the case with Swedish. They're either compounds (sammansättningar) or derivations (avledningar), which are quite clearly delineated.
  • Yes, the primate-definition is already explained in the English link so it felt kinda redundant. The differences in meaning between Swedish människa and English "human" otherwise are quite subtle. Most of it is a question of idiomatic usage.
  • Yes, I've understood that there's a general policy about not redirecting, but I see no reason to follow it in the case of Swedish inflection since it serves no purpose other than being policy (circular argumentation). If there were no inflection tables in the articles, I could understand it. But since the inflection is so very clearly specified in the small amount of information found at människa it's a policy begging to be disrespected. If the only argument is "people might be confused" or "we agreed on it", then someone needs to work on the motivations or consider exceptions to the rule. Overall, I get the feeling that policies at en:wikt are extremely rigid and that most exceptions are seen as an excuse to make policies ever more rigid rather than more flexible.
Peter Isotalo 22:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With the exception of the redirects I mostly agree. Still, any word that is in SAOL should be there IMHO.
  • As for the header ====Compounds====, I have to think about it some more.
  • As for the redirect, as I said earlier on this page that you didn't reply to "The main problem with a redirect is that it carries too little information". If there is a overlap it is hard to resolve even for a human. Obviously it will be even harder if not impossible for a bot...
--Patrik Stridvall 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're telling me someone who gets redirected from människor to människa can't figure out why, then I'd say we're dealing with someone for whom no superfluous info will ever be of any use. We're talking someone who's either can't read English or doesn't bother to read a few lines of text. Neither would seem to be our problem to cope with.
Peter Isotalo 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So if try to add a Swedish word and find it redirects to say a Welsh word. Can you really easily determine if it is definite/indefinite, singular/plural etc? For all possible languages? I seriously doubt that. It will be harded still for a 'bot. Redirect makes much less sense in a multilingual enviroment. But there is no point arguing with me, if you want to change the policy, please take at up at WT:BP or wherever. --Patrik Stridvall 11:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You're not all that excited about using relevant argumentation, are you? Please bring up these issues when they actually have to do with real situations. This example is simply not a problem and won't be until we find another language where "människor" can mean something different. What you're doing by again citing policy though it was a rule or even a law is rules lawyering. Paragrafrytteri, if you will. It's a very bad way of trying to run a wiki and will come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
And I am not writing a single bloody article here intended for any damned bots. I'm writing for people. The insignificant bot-using minority is information-savvy enough to get the same info elsewhere. They don't need wikiprojects sucking up to them.
Peter Isotalo 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
paragrafrytteri is a nice Swedish word. :-) Still, I'm not really that much in to that, I mostly said that mostly because I don't feel like discussing it any more. It is not about the entry människor in itself it is about having a consistent policy. It is very hard fo a bot to handle irregular words. It is hard enough for a human and most humans will just overwrite the redirect. --Patrik Stridvall 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Entry layout[edit]

According to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Additional headings alternative spellings, etymology and pronunciation precede the definition. And that's the way most people do it. SemperBlotto 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense to place anything but the definition first in a dictionary. I suspect most people do it simply because they think it's a standard. You should consider changing the recommendations.
Peter Isotalo 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Arabic[edit]

If you want to dispute a sense (definition) the procedure is to add {{rfv-sense}}. Simply removing senses you are not familiar with is treated as near-vandalism, and (as you have found) often routinely reverted. Robert Ullmann 14:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that the onus of providing references lies on those wishing to remove a dubious separation of definitions rather than on those wishing to keep it. Unless, of course, you're going to decide whether the definition is valid by voting on it...
Peter Isotalo 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse. The references are provided for the entry and discussed at WT:RFV by anyone "defending" the sense. All you have to do is tag it and add the section there (see what Kappa did for Chinese). And then we have to go cite something we know a priori is perfectly valid ;-( Robert Ullmann 15:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Flata[edit]

Do you remember your source for the statement on the origin of the Swedish word "flata"? I have heard another version - rubbing flat body parts against each other - but have no good source for it. [1] 213.89.200.190 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

kant[edit]

Actually, the mathematical meaning is not the same. In mathematics, edges are definite straight segments with no width. In general, an edge is an indefinite boundary or even a corner. --EncycloPetey 06:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you define it a bit more specifically, then? Right now it looks identical to the first definition to anyone who isn't into mathematics.
Peter Isotalo 06:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Phonology links[edit]

Please see this regarding language specification of Template:IPA.

Peter Isotalo 06:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What’s your point? —Stephen 06:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That linkage to phonology articles at Wikipedia doesn't make much sense. If you're going to keep reverting me, do you think you could provide a bit more cohesive explanations? I'm already adding links to our own Swedish pronunciation guide, and having an additional link that says "IPA" that leads to a linguistic article isn't really helpful.
Peter Isotalo 08:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
While there is definite merit in your proposal, it requires two arduous things: some decent discussion at the BP and a fair amount of infrastructure (creating all those Wiktionary side appendices or seeing whether the 'pedia has IPA charts for a sizable number of languages). In any case, we just can't go about this half-cocked, inserting the new template into random articles. This has to be done consistently, at the {{IPA}} level. If you want this to become a reality, I suggest you get crackin' on those things, instead of fighting with Stephen. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've already made a local Swedish pronunciation guide which I am consistently linking to, so why are you insisting on a Wikipedia link? If you're so determined to keep that template, please change the link, or it'll just be confusing. There are plenty of charts over at Wikipedia that can be moved here and used as a base for building good pronunciation guides. I see no reason why a dictionary shouldn't be able to host its own pronunciation guides.
So how about helping out here instead of just telling me that I'm "fighting". Stephen isn't exactly doing his best to explain the situation nor to help out.
Peter Isotalo 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this here so that we can avoid bothering Stephen anymore (he didn't seem to keen on having this convo :-)). The thing about helping is this. Generally, since each editor is an unpaid volunteer, and really can't be expected to be counted on for anything (the notable exception is User:EncycloPetey, who runs WOTD), each editor is responsible for their own projects. Simply put, if you want something done, you generally have to do it yourself. That being said, replacing {{IPA}} with {{IPAchar}} is not the way to do it. There are thousands upon thousands of instances of {{IPA}} and at Wiktionary we very highly value consistency (it's really the only practical way to do a dictionary). However, it is a simple matter to insert some new code into {{IPA}}. If we go with local appendices, we could even program it so that it links to the appropriate appendix if it exists, and links to the page it currently does if not (eliminating the immediate need for the infrastructure). However, we can't change such a widely used template without some community consensus. Thus, all you have to do is start a conversation at the WT:BP, saying what you want to do (change the code of {{IPA}}), give a link to the Swedish pronunciation guide, and see where it goes from there. Quite frankly, I think it would be an easy sell (but I have been wrong about these things before). For what it's worth, if you get the ball rolling, I'd be happy to support your motion, write the new code, and help you import appendices. The alternative is to keep going about it the way you have thus far, with Stephen (and I) reverting your edits and eventually blocking you for wasting our time. I'm sorry that that's the way it is, but, well....it is. I'll be tucking in for the evening, and so it shall be some time before I get a chance to see any response you give here. I look forward to seeing what happens. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread over at the BP.
Peter Isotalo 09:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think you've done your part. It's unfortunate that no one responded to your thread. Rest assured that we'll get plenty of responses when the template is changed. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to spark a good conversation on this project is to be a little too bold. I'll start working on the template. Give me some time, though, as I want to make sure my changes don't break the template, as it's quite widely used. In the meantime, you may want to start moving things to "Wiktionary: language pronunciation," as that's where the template will link to. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So I got cold feet at the last minute. See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#I've got IPA, and here are my demands. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the changes have been made. The link is actually to "Appendix:language pronunciation," and Appendix:Swedish pronunciation has been moved to its current location. If you could spend some time getting rid of the incorrect {{a|Swedish}} from the entries you placed it in, that would be appreciated. Let me know if there are any other issues. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll start making the tweaks right now.
Peter Isotalo 09:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FWOTD nominations[edit]

Hey there, thanks for your Swedish Foreign Word of the Day nominations. However, I’m afraid you misunderstood what we mean by quotations; they must be quotations from books, periodicals, or usenet (the formatting of which is explained here), but what you added are example sentences. Of your latest nominations, only hen has quotations. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Don't you ever check the citations tab when it's blue?
Peter Isotalo 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Stupid me. Sorry about that. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No prob. But since you as a regular didn't look there, I assume that it's not the common way of doing it. Is it not commonly used? Should I not use it?
Peter Isotalo 16:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no problem using it. But generally it’s only used when there are a lot of quotations, and even then a few are usually left in the entry. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Got it.
Peter Isotalo 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to feature hen, but can you create entries for the inflected forms hens and henom first? Thank you —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Entries created.
Peter Isotalo 05:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I like your name[edit]

It means "big house" in Finnish. Did your ancestors come from Finland? —CodeCat 23:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My father is Finnish.
Peter Isotalo 13:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Absurd block[edit]

I was just blocked for three days (?) by an administrator who disagreed with me on a definition for Molotov cocktail. This despite using talkpage, without any sort or warning or notification, I might add. And with the completely bogus reasoning "vandalism".

Peter Isotalo 20:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

He said he never disagreed with you... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You haven't referred to a single policy document or even a recommendation. Just "don't do this, even if you're right; we have to make a formal decision about this, but I'm not going to use a talkpage for it". And then a three day "vandalism" block. Do you expect ppl to just know your quirky rules or is the blocking part of the learning process?
Did you even notice that I tried to merge the two definitions, or did you not even look at the edit?
Peter Isotalo 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your block[edit]

I got your email and I just want to say that your block was justified. You repeatedly removed content from a page without going through the proper process of RFV and/or RFD. If it were me, I would have left a note on your talk page and given you another chance before resorting to a block, but that doesn't matter. Your block is only for three days, so I don't see why it is such a problem for you to just wait it out. --WikiTiki89 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing that blocks should be used as punitive measures, which means you've completely failed to understand their essential purpose. And you're more concerned about strictly enforcing the letter of the law as long as it doesn't apply to administrators.
You have a few things to learn about the meaning of blocks apparently...
Peter Isotalo 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Blocks are punitive measures. If I did something like repeatedly delete content, I'd like to think that someone would block me too. --WikiTiki89 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You really should work a bit on the "only be used to prevent edits"-part of the blocking policy, then.
Peter Isotalo 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To prevent you from re-deleting content. --WikiTiki89 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It feels that an apology is in order for not having left such a note, and I certainly wouldn't have called the removal vandalism either. However, the admin was correct in the way the entry (if not your user account) was handled. Multiple reverts are viewed as stubbornness here, which is not helpful to the civil discussion we trust each other and yourself to engage in. Thank you for your forthright comments, accurate edit summaries, and sincere concern in contribution. And again, apologies for the harsh treatment. Hopefully the correct process for verifying and removing content is clear by now, but you are always welcome to ask me any questions that may arise. DAVilla 06:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)