I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4.
Warmest Regards, :)--thecurranSpeak your mindmy past03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories having passed WT:RFDO, I'd suggest you start at vote on it to see if you have the community's approval. That, or just drop it completely. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, so many translation requests, don't look right - as you did in I don't speak English. They will take a long time to be filled. Also, with Arabic, we normally don't add translations for dialects if they are identical (especially in spelling) with the standard Arabic. Anatoli19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Opiaterein. I know that we aren't the best of friends, but you are the resident Romanian expert, so I thought that you would be able to help me out with this word. I've come across it when playing Scrabble in Romanian (and trust me, I'm pretty good at it, despite not being able to speak the language), and I was wondering if you would be able to write a quick little entry for this word in Romanian for me? I would be very grateful if you would. Thanks, Razorflame13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick little entry :) It is much appreciated :) Cheers, Razorflame
I'm going to ask really nice, ok? I really would like to learn how to do multi-word IPAs, however, I haven't the foggiest idea about how to do so. Would you be willing to make a few edits that add IPAs to some multi word Esperanto entries for me so that I can see how it is done? Thanks again for the help, Razorflame16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would make me lol if you didn't remind me why people disappoint me so much. Now really get off my talk page, I want absolutely nothing to do with you. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you brain-damaged or do you just enjoy irritating people? f+u+c+k+space+o+f+f = a desire for you to find someone else to aid your unnameable psychoses. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
de-noun-f behaves weird and i don't know why, could you come to IRC to assist me? or do you want me to explain here? --CK8516:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What request, by whom, where and against which policy? Are you even authorized to circumvent local communities on the basis of your own subjective judgment that way? --Ivan Štambuk06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that way that can feign inactivity due to off-wiki overbusiness, acting only in issues they're particularly interested in. --Ivan Štambuk06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Opi. I've noticed a few bot edits of German adjectives forms. Thanks very much for these. Would it be problematic, if I were to add some German adjectives onto OpiBot's Request page? I've been spending some time recently adding some German comparative and superlative forms, knowing that there were some many more inflected senses missing to them - but it was totally tedious to add all of them! One day my own bot will be ready again - User:Rising Sun has improved the code for the Portuguese bot, but I could change it for German too, and also Polish, which I understand more now. Soon, every SOB will have their own bot! --Volants14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can add them. :) So far I've only done a couple of patterns... I still have to work on words in which the final consonant changes, like from /ç/ to /g/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g)... but once I get a little time in which I remember I'm supposed to do that, it shouldn't take long. >_> haha — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First thanks for continuing what I started last year with Egyptian Arabic ! A small remark I'd like to make though: I tried to follow the guidelines at Wiktionary:Transliteration and romanization and that's why transliterated text in the entries I created reflect spelling rather than pronunciation. ie. I transliterated قال to qaal although I know perfectly well it's pronounced 'aal... I'm not going to revert your edits, but maybe it would be better to use IPA to show pronunciation and keep transliterated text for spelling... Beru715:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the fact that Wiktionary:Transliteration and romanization uses a very non-scientific system... I also like to transliterate Egyptian Arabic in a way that reflects the differences from Fus-ha, especially since I'm not confident enough to include IPA for Egyptian yet... I can never quite decide what would be the most accurate way to describe some of the vowels. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Razorflame and all those who won't allow themselves to realize his potential for damage... Have you ever seen how many errors are on the French wiktionary?
The Serbo-Croatian Fiasco, and the disgusting behaviour of Robert Ullmann in particular.
Complete amateurs proposing and passing major changes to the handling of various languages.
Numerous petty arguments regarding such petty issues as template color, seemingly stemming from various users' control issues.
People continually using the block tool on administrators.
On French Wiktionary I have spotted indeed some errors in Bulgarian and Russian entries, but this is perhaps due to their generation by bots. As for the discussions of petty details such as template layout, I agree. Do not let them discourage you. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They also have tons of mistakes in Albanian and Hindi entries... Like tons. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 30% of their entries in Hindi contain errors. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These all are likely resulting from bot-generation of lemma entries from English Wiktionary translation tables without any kind of supervision by a knowledgeable user. Foreign-language wiktionaries are slowly turning into an obsolete, unmaintained version of English Wiktionary. Thus, it's ultimately "our fault" in most of the cases, heh. In a way, that's what they deserve when they're greedy for numbers and want to leap-frog their entry count disregarding quality. --Ivan Štambuk18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that eventually this wiktionary will just be a big dumping ground for copy/paste from the million other shitty online dictionaries out there, and by the time anybody cares, it'll be too late to fix it without just deleting everything and starting over. But we all know that will never happen, we'll just keeping adding bullshit to the bullshit :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Chinese government does not consist of 1.5 billion people: it's not a democracy. Secondly, there is no way that that comment could be construed as "intimidating behavior/harassment", so I infer that Opiaterein was just having a bit of revenge. Which is — you guessed it — completely inappropriate. —RuakhTALK16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "Sinophobic" do you mean opposed to Chinese people, or opposed to the Chinese government? If the former, then you're veering off-topic, and if the latter, then you're completely wrong. —RuakhTALK16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Chinese government anyway? Those nine men currently leading the country are very intelligent and dedicated to the goal of digging out hundreds of millions out of poverty. China has stayed roughly within its current borders for the past 2 millenia, and if the last century of history has taught us anything, it is Germany and USA that are the prime candidates for parable-villains planning to take over the planet. --Ivan Štambuk02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "China has stayed roughly within its current borders for the past 2 millenia": O.K., but if we replace that statement with its non-stupid counterpart, we get "For the past two millennia, China has stayed roughly within the borders it had two millennia ago", which is obviously false. (In other words, you're arguing that imperialism is O.K. as long as it's successful and permanent. You'll forgive me for not finding that argument very compelling.) —RuakhTALK15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed any mention of the unfortunate group to which Godwin's law refers, but at any rate Wiktionary is a MUCH too serious place for that to apply. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruakh, Chinese civilization (China is much more than the Western concept of "nation-state", it's more like "civilization-state") hasn't embarked on a world-wide campaign of conquest never in its recorded history. It mostly territorially spread to the areas which were already for centuries under the influence of their immensely-pervading cultural sphere. Kassad's parable of Chinese secret agents firing nuclear missiles on European capitals reflects typical cultural prejudice stemming from systemic brainwashing by Rupert Murdoch's media propaganda. I'm personally fine with imperialism as long as it is for the "greater cause" (the type of depicted in the Chinese move Hero ^_^), but these days it's more about proving whose world's #1 bully. China is on the rise and the rest of the world can simply envy for not having that kind of smart and capable leadership, and is instead being governed by dysfunctional parliamentarians and congressmen who represent nothing but vested interests of behind-the-scene corporate and financial circles that enabled them to rise to to that position in the first place. --Ivan Štambuk16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Freedoms" and "democracy" are way too overrated. Most of the relevant world's governments are in fact totalitarian; it's just that some of them are more clear about out it, whilst other ones have to go through the pains of staging elections every 4-5 years, giving vox populi a chance to channel its accumulated frustrations by selecting among a list of candidates none of which would ultimately make a difference in the end, because things such as foreign policy, military and economy are conditioned by factors that are much more resistant to a change of (nominal) political leadership. The only right the common people are truly entitled to is the illusion of having it. --Ivan Štambuk18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, I am fascinated by your cogitations and at the same time surprised by the fact that I am not at odds at you as some 15 months ago when we confabulated about a Caucasian and a Balkan (political) issue. This time I can only indorse the perspicacity of your thought and the candidness with which you expressed it. At the same time, let me remind you of a sentence from Émil Cioran: We permit the truth to be uttered only by children or something alike (or We can tolerate the truth only if it is..., I can check it, but I am præcipitate now), so if it is uttered too often by mature people, it may seem unwonted. Vitam impendere vero is a laudable undertaking (even if it is partem vitae), albeit inconvenient. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I love reading a political discussion that doesn’t end with the formation of the same old bland liberal-democratic consensus, it’s worth noting that this has bugger all to do with lexicography. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to talk about why it's ok for some wiki-cliques to ban other administrators with no warning for things they percieve as offensive, but not for members of other wiki-cliques, or non-members. Also why is it ok for administrators to ban other administrators without warning, but not ok to ban IPs and new users with no warning? Wiktionary is always going to suck... so sad. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusions: Neither of the blocks were justified. There is a difference between maligning a people and maligning a government, but it is not as clear as Ruakh seems to assume. People are flawed, and so their endeavours will be imperfect. As Kant said, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Big deal. Move on. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t comment on all, or even many, blocks. The “people are flawed” bit and the Kant quote should help you explain and come to terms with those other blocks. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, which blocks are you talking about? (Honestly, I'm a bit shocked at your implication that you find anything offensive: you seem to go out of your way to offend and insult people, so I assumed you had a 4chan-type attitude toward the place. If you do actually care about Wiktionary suckage, then that raises a lot of interesting questions.) —RuakhTALK18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any person with any morals will find something offensive on some level. I wouldn't expect you to make any attempt to understand my way of thinking if I were to further explain myself, so next point - I never go out of my way to do anything, I'm far too lazy.
If I had a 4chan attitude toward wiktionary, why would I have been a steady contributor for going on 4 years? If I may toot my own horn a bit, our coverage of a few languages would be a lot worse than it is. I may not have completely built them up, but I've set a good foundation for a few of them. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. :-) And now that I think about it, I do remember your (completely justified) offense at Pepsi Lite's anti-Croatian remarks back when. You regularly say very mean things to a lot of different editors, but perhaps I had it backward: perhaps you say those things because you care greatly, rather than because you don't care at all. (So, more like Connel than like 4chan. Though either way, I wish you would be more civil.) You and I clashed several times when you were trying to work on Hebrew, but I have to admit that editors from some other languages seem to greatly appreciate your help, so by all means, please feel free to toot your own horn. :-) —RuakhTALK20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ability to remain civil is directly linked to my remaining patience at a given time. Some things drain my patience really quickly, and the way things are around here recently my well of patience has just been getting smaller. I'll probably be scarce by the end of Summer, if not sooner. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you might want to take a wiki-break for a while. There are always stressful things on-wiki, and I find that a break every so often is good for my blood pressure. :-P —RuakhTALK20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ability to remain civil is directly linked to my remaining patience at a given time. <- also to any perception of unwillingness to listen to differing points of view. Skepticism is one thing, but few things anger me more than a person who lives happily with a closed mind. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This contribution of Prince Kassad is not an instance of "intimidating behavior/harassment" and the block is inappropriate. The explanation "intimidating behavior/harassment" was given by Opiaterein as a reason for blocking Prince Kassad for 5 minutes[2].--Dan Polansky14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat dead horses. It irritates me, and we all know how I'm full of abuse when I'm irritated. I'm led to believe that you didn't even read, or skim the above "conversation". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean Ruakh's 'Secondly, there is no way that that comment could be construed as "intimidating behavior/harassment", ...'. How that has lead you to the conclusion that I have not read or skimmed the above interaction is beyond me. I have seconded Ruakh in my own words; that's all to it. I don't see you anywhere acknowledging the point, so a repetition seems to be in order. --Dan Polansky21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you ever decide to return to German: there's now {{de-verb form of}} which can be used to generate definition lines for German verb forms. This makes it possible to bot-generate German verb forms in the future. -- Prince Kassad18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you could have used a more finger-friendly name. Anyway, you tend to disagree with a lot of my ideas before you know what they actually are. I'm sure you can handle German just fine without any major support from me. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opiaterein. I see that you changed islandsk fårehund, from phrase to noun. I know that noun phrases are treated as nouns, but in my view it doesn't make sense for many Danish noun phrases. Danish nouns are inflected in indefinite/definite, but this phrase isn't. The adjective islandsk(“Icelandic”) can take a definite form in connection with the definite article, but the noun (deprecated template usage)fårehund exists only in indefinite forms in this phrase.
That's confusing :D but I'll accept it. (God Danish is confusing...) However, there are going to be people who will try to change it. I would put this information in the talk page of the entry... even then, they will probably still want it as =Noun=, so you may need to make a vote about it...*shudders* god wiktionary is becoming a bureaucratic wastepit... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bulgarian noun phrases are inflected exactly the same way (Danish -en/-et corresponds to Bulgarien -ът/-та/-то, Danish den ...e, det ...e to Bulgarian -ият/-ата/-ото) and that is one of the reasons why I am fond of the Danish languages. So many morphological similarities with Bulgarian. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I saw you're learning Icelandic phonology. See the change I made on getnaðarlimur (diff): /k/, /kʰ/ are usually /c/, /cʰ/ before /ɛ/, /ɪ/, /i/ and /ai/ (though only when spelt æ), secondary stress was missing, and /rl/ > /rtl/ does not apply when the l is the first sound in the next part of a compound word. The vowel length is not as important, as it is very predictable and arguably not phonemic. – Krun17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone mostly by the article on Icelandic phonology on Wikipedia, but I haven't internalized the rules fully yet, so I don't always remember all the conditionals and stuff... Thanks for your help, though, it's good to have an extra pair of eyes, especially when they're more experienced :D
At some point I'll probably want to make some little visual changes to templates, try to optimize them a bit in terms of organization and I guess ergonomics. I noticed in the template for elska that the medio-passive conjugation is listed there. Should we have medio-passives in their own entries? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I premise to stick to my premise...and it involves you a bit too. So if I don't stick to it, which I will, I can be reprimanded. And now I can tell the admins when and why they can block me! But I have already premised to stick to it, so...hmm I got tangled up in RF-esque logic. --Rising Suntalk?17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to exclude the mediopassive from the conjugation. It is used quite a bit, and is documented for at least 750 years. – Krun00:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I figured you were using that site. It's fairly good, but it is still rather imcomplete and sometimes has errors. Anyway, I would use it, Google shows quite a few hits, and I've found dictionary references. It is simply missing from BÍN. – Krun00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the edit was actually useful, it's definitely not an invitation for more incivility against Razorflame. Consider this a warning. -- Prince Kassad22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably misusing it. It sounds like it was meant to be r-tard and therefor one of those stupid online coinages like pwn, plx, b-tard, etc. But I'll add it if you can find me a decent def. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan uses it in the World of Warcraft episode of South Park, so it's probably computer related, and maybe WOW or mmorpg specific. But I suppose we could just steal it for the pirate world. Muhahahahahaaaaaaa — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small notice: the transliteration given on that page actually depends on a bug in the Arial Unicode MS font, and will display incorrectly in all other fonts (the double tilde appears over the m and the a, which is probably not what you intended). Just thought I'd let you know so you can fix this for any affected entries (shouldn't be too many). Also, the aspect of double vowels like ai and au really should be mentioned on the Hindi transliteration page, as currently it does not state whether to use single or double tilde, and apparently, both variants are in use. -- Prince Kassad07:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The correct transliteration would be with a single tilde over both "a" and "i", as it appears now (at least on my system). They are considered to be a single vowel, not two, therefore the tilde must cover both "a" and "i". --Dijan08:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the image, even the regular tilde looks different from what I see in my browser. Your regular tilde is completely touching the character it sits on, while on my system it's just a bit raised. I'm not sure what browser you're using or what system you even have. I'm using Firefox 3.6 in which the option "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above" is enabled. If I disable that option in my browser, the tilde does not display correctly, unless I choose some other fonts, and with most of them, it displays correctly for me. Not using the single tilde is misleading. --Dijan09:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the half form tilde in the article, which should not be affected by the bug (at least, it displays fine for me now, I don't know if it looks correct for you). -- Prince Kassad09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now, it displays improperly for me. It seems to cover half of "a" and completely the "i" and it goes over the closing bracket. --Dijan09:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it off to the right a lot or just a bit? Small positioning errors are to be expected, but if it looks completely wrong a different solution is needed. -- Prince Kassad09:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask you one last time, please stop sticking your nose where it does not belong. We are not supposed to be contacting each other, so please stop butting in on conversations that have nothing to do with you. Razorflame19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to misrepresent yourself, I'm going to point it out. You stick your nose in plenty of places is doesn't belong. For instance, what do you know about Finnish to say that you think we shouldn't include so many forms? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that we shouldn't include so many forms. I was getting the community's approval first to make sure that we want to make them all, which at the time, was the right course of action. Razorflame19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you were just struggling with the meaning of "all words in all languages". That is the policy. So basically you were asking the community a trick question.
To tell you the truth, I think that we should include all of the form of entries for nouns and adjectives, but after looking through the form-of entries for the verb side of things, I think it would be best to stay away from the ones that are more than one word.
More than one word isn't a form-of. It's a periphrastic construction.
...both me and Hekaheka have concerns that there might just be too many form-of entries to create them all.
Look, both of you, all Wiktionarian noses belong everywhere on Wiktionary. When you want a private conversation, take it to IRC or e-mail, or save it for the next secret cabal meeting. Or better yet, think twice about whether the conversation is even worth having. —RuakhTALK19:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not engage in any discussion that I have on another person's talk page in the future please. If I am talking with another person in a conversation that has nothing to do with you, then I don't expect you to be in it, period. The example you gave was a completely different kind of butting in which is acccepted on here, but butting in like you did on Prince Kassad's talk page is not only uncalled for, because it did not pertain to you, but also was a conversation that was already over, so there was no real need for you to make any kind of comment what-so-ever. Razorflame19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make claims such as "The term povo does not derive from povi" and delete content and fail to replace it with referenced information, I am going to ban you.
If you are going to claim that you read Kannada at a near-native level and continue to ask for verifications, I am going to point out that you are misrepresenting yourself. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you block me, I will claim that you have a conflict of interest, because you will, and if you continue to harass me, I will bring this up to the community's attention. Razorflame20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not harassing you. I'm pointing out that you are misrepresenting yourself. You were deleting perfectly valid information for no reason other than that you claim that it is wrong without any kind of reference. I have been putting a lot of time and energy into wiktionary for several years and I find it remarkably frustrating dealing with you. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that matter: what exactly was the reason for the one-month block? Note that the premise says "a period of one week to one month", so there should be a sufficient reason to use the maximum permissible block length. -- Prince Kassad20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to be following that to the letter. Didn't he delete it, anyway? He's started editing whatever language he wants again. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It explicitely says he may edit any language he wants. So yeah. And that text is the only reason for the block really, as there has not been a violation of policy in any way. -- Prince Kassad20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He deleted some etymological content that we had fought over in the past. In fact I think I blocked him that time, too. Anyway, it hasn't always said he can edit wherever he wants. It originally said something like that he would only edit english and esperanto until he had "proven" himself or something. I still wouldn't trust him with a nickel and would feel much better about the future of wiktionary if we were rid of him permanently. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes he has done some stuff about etymologies, but WT:BLOCK requires a warning, which has not been given. And yes he added that statement later on, and nobody opposed, so I guess the community accepts that. Also nice to know your personal opinion, which is sadly all but relevant. -- Prince Kassad20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I warned him right after he did it about an hour ago, right here. If you don't like my opinion, nobody's forcing you to be here. :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the de-conj template, which causes your hidden comment to show up in a quite interesting way... Just wanted to let you know. -- Prince Kassad18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've never been able to figure out how to use your unwieldy templates, so if you're going to change them it's your responsibility to fix the instances of their usage. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about adding Croatian translations, I didn't realise Serbo-Croatian was used... It's confusing though, somewhere there is a Serbo-Croatian translation, somewhere a Croatian and a Serbian, some words are said to be from Croatian language and some from Serbo-Croatian... I hope this gets standardised ASAP because I was just trying to contribute and ended up just causing a mess. :( Anyway, sorry about that. 89.164.129.21805:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not your babysitter. If you're going to keep "fixing" things because you still view me as a competitor, you need to do your homework. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not view you as your competitor. I want to make sure things are right, which is why I am asking you to show me some proof that it is pronounced in that manner, to make sure it is correct. Razorflame23:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly remember you saying once that you view me as a competitor.
"A syllable in Esperanto is generally of the form (s/ŝ)(C)(C)V(C)(C). That is, it may have an onset, of up to three consonants; must have a nucleus of a single vowel or diphthong (except in onomatopoeic words such as zzz!), and may have a coda of zero to one (occasionally two) consonants." — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing this a bit longer than you have, and I don't change my language focus every week. (Although I do admittedly bounce about more than average editors.) So if I write something, and you "fix" it, and I revert your fix, it's probably because I'm right. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I believe something to be wrong, I will provide evidence to support the fact that it could possibly be wrong. I accept Ruakh's condition, so, no, you don't need to make sure that I know that it applies to me as well because I already knew that. Razorflame23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, about this word, I used DEX too, but if you look there's more than one definition: the first one coming from osteolum (not listed in the Wiktionary entry) has a totally different meaning from the main, most common one, which means light or easy. The second mentions iuşor, part of which ultimately from levis and the rest from the suffix -uşor.
Hello. Judging from this edit you are about to learn or at least contribute in mk, is this correct? What is your stance towards it? You are probably aware that the relation between it and Bulgarian is virtually identical to this between Moldavia and Romania or Flemish and Dutch (although in the last case there is no animosity in the bilateral relations). The uſerhight Bogormconverſation18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know most Moldavians say that they speak Romanian... I don't really know a lot about Bulgarian or Macedonian, but from what I have seen they appear sufficiently different to warrant at least their own sections... I almost never see words that are pronounced or spelled the same way. But having said that, I don't necessarily think that L2 headers should be reserved for "languages" as some dialects do differ from standard language pretty significantly, especially regional Arabic. So really, I'm not 100% on either side of the argument. Not yet anyway. =) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which t's and s's does Wiktionary use in general for all of their entries? Does it use the dot looking thing under them, or does it use these: şţ Thanks, Razorflame03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't clear by what I wrote that it's a dilemma? They're uncommon letters, so they're not always well-represented or even used online by Romanians. Most of the time Romanians don't even use the special letters, they just write a, i, s and t. So the comma letters might be correct, but currently the cedilla ones are more common. Just don't mess with Romanian. Easy answer. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on messing with Romanian beyond my limitations with the language. If you see a mistake that I make, you are free to correct them. Razorflame14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A public apology for this edit in violation of the community decision and the accompanying edit summary ("reverting ignorance") is both expected and required.
Sweet Jesus, you two. Can we please calm down for just one moment, please? Firstly, can we all recognise that the whole SC vs Serb/Croat/Bos bit is one of the more controversial issues on this project? Good. Can we also recognise that you two are among the more adamant and angry voices in the discussion? I hope so. So, instead of it going back and forth, with a bunch of name calling and cries of genocide and whatnot, how about this. Opiaterein, put the page back to Robert's version, and drop a note on Ivan's talk page, asking him to do as he sees fit, because Robert is right when he says that you're undoing Ivan's work. Robert, what "community decision" are you referring to? As I recall, there was no decision. There was a big, hairy, fucking non-decision. So, please, let's not act as if we all know and agree on some standard as to how these entries are supposed to look, and that Opiaterein was somehow bucking it. Of course, I have nothing resembling authority over either of you two, so I can only appeal to your sense of reason and civility. Thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί11:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a note for Ivan, but I won't revert to the silly 4-"language" version. I'm pretty sure he only put the Bosnian in there because it was the only one of the three that wasn't represented explicitly. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Either all of those duplicates should be terminated, or all should be present. By such local balancing we're actively discouraging further edits in either of those two directions, leaving the unified treatment as the only viable option. It's like US foreign policy ;) --Ivan Štambuk00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see...this is at least the fifth time that you've misused the blocking tool. Ordinarily, users who misuse the blocking tool more than twice or three times are usually desysopped because they obviously lack the knowledge to use the tools correctly. You've proven to me that you do not know how to properly use the blocking tool. Five misuses of it proves my point. Your most recent block was against me for undoing an edit of yours that was incorrect. There is nothing in the blocking policy that states that you can block a user for disagreeing with you. That is what is called a conflict of interest block or a COI block. Furthermore, it further proves that you are not fit for the administrator tools because it shows that you are prone to blocking people who disagree with you, even when you are wrong and they are right, which is not the right attitude that an administrator needs to have, especially one that is (seemingly) as respected as you are. Razorflame04:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I block you, you call it a misuse of the block tool.
Every time you revert an edit of mine, you think you're the one who's right. You also revert my reverts and start little edit wars, which is why I blocked you this time - I just didn't feel like dealing with it again.
To be clear, the periods aren't needed in IPA. Where a syllable boundary lies is debatable, especially with compound sounds represented by single letters in an alphabet. So I never use them. Even you didn't use them until recently. When you reverted me, you also re-introduced the incorrect ' character. So you were still in the wrong.
"You are prone to blocking people who disagree with you" is frankly one of the dumbest fucking things I've heard outside the context of politics in quite a while. Clearly you have no idea, because if it were true I would have blocked half of wiktionary at least once by now, including Robert Ullmann and that damned Tbot, Yair possibly, Gloves, etc.
You have a habit of assuming that you are correct without doing real research. Even on your talk page, people bring up your mistakes. The most recent in mind is Daniel correcting your Czech.
I'm tired of you thinking that you somehow have superior knowledge because you saw something done a certain way once and assume it's correct. The next time you want to revert someone, maybe you should ask why they did something a certain way, instead of incorrectly assuming (again) that you are the one that is correct. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I have superior knowledge than you or because I saw something once. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths that they did not say. Furthermore, I never "assume" that I am right.
Furthermore, I say that it you incorrectly use the blocking tool because you do. You cannot block someone for undoing an edit of yours once. That does not make an edit war. Furthermore, there is nothing in the blocking policy that said that you could block me for undoing a single edit of yours, so truth be told, you are A) Not always right, so get that through your head, and B) That makes your use of the blocking tool incorrect, so you saying that it was incorrect of me to claim that it was a misuse of the block tool is not correct. Razorflame01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking policy allows you to be blocked if other methods of preventing harmful edits are unlikely to work. This seems a perfectly valid use of it, though a fairly pointless one (given that it's already been shown that blocking you makes no difference). Conrad.Irwin07:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never "assume" that I am right. User:Razorflame 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Prove your change to aeroplano to me clearly. Otherwise, I won't believe that what you added is correct. User:Razorflame 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That does not prove that I claim to have superior knowledge to you. That just shows that I wanted proof from you about your edit before I believed it to be correct. I did not say or even think that what I did was correct. Razorflame18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say or even think that what I did was correct. User:Razorflame 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are asking for someone to suply negative evidence, which is a theoretical absurdity. If you feel that the word can legitimately be hyphenated there, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence of an Esperanto publication that hyphenates the word in that location. I find it very unlikely that any editor would ever break that word across two lines as "a-" "eroplano". Editors of books don't do that because it's a dumb use of hyphenation. --EncycloPetey20:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking at the wrong edit. It's Opiaterein's edit that claims that an editor might break it as a-eroplano. (Razorflame's claims that an editor might break it as aer-oplano.) —RuakhTALK01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't been using the hyphenation as a hyphenation, though... we've been using it to show syllabation. And, Mr. Razorflame, I've shown you that in the past week when I told you about how Esperanto forms syllables. One vowel per syllable. Period. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have only been using the template for hyphenation, and a number of other editors have done that. If some editors have using hyphenation to indicate syllabation, then we need to separate those two functions with a new template and clean up all instances that use the template currently. Hyphenation does not mean syllabation and is something altogether different. Hyphenation is about typography in the written language; syllabation is about pronunciation in the spoken language. Syllabation cannot be indicated accurately using the written form of words, because syllables sometimes break in the middle of a written letter, such as x (eg. ak-sial). --EncycloPetey20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*IDea* You could make it so that if {{hyphenation}} has a certain parameter specified that it will show "syllabation" insted of "hyphenation" in the output. Thereby eradicating the need for another template. Oontz oontz — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must be misunderstanding what EncycloPetey is saying? Syllabification is an aspect of pronunciation, so is best shown in pronunciation templates. "The need for another template" comes pre-eradicated, by virtue of never having existed: our existing pronunciation templates are perfect for the job. Overloading {{hyphenation}} makes no sense for this, since hyphenation, being an aspect of orthography rather than of pronunciation, is something quite different. —RuakhTALK01:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These should be merged into one, to be made more like {{fr-noun}}, so that if the feminine (or more rarely) the masculine is specified it creates a default feminine singular and feminine plural. This will take some thinking about, however. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "coordinated attack" is of course Croatian nationalpedia hive mind [4] (with Herr Ullmann unavoidibly dipping his all-seeing tentacles). They're also trying to fabricate history on several English Wikipedia articles, where I'm having most amusing discussions with comrade Mir "languages have nothing to do with linguistics" Harven (his latest statement: standard Croatian has no dialectal basis, and the fact that the grammar is 99% identical to that of Bosnian/Serbian/Montenegrin is a historical accident!), and his lovely friends (Kubura, SpeedyGonsales). So whenever you see some obscure user reverting you there, it's probably because he was instructed to do so by some douche on IRC in order to provoke a particular response. Cheers! :) --Ivan Štambuk13:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha...what fucking morons :) As we've seen, I'm not afraid of "misusing" the block tool. I think it's possible that Ullmann realized that, so now he's just getting pawns to do this for him. I'll try to keep more SC in my watchlist. I try to watch all the ones I edit, anyway. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately) I can't let you block someone for upholding a WT policy. I'd suggest a re-run of the vote. But I can't imagine you'd get it through if you need at least 70% of the popular vote to do so. Sorry. I don't make the rules here, but I do try and uphold them irrespective of my personal feelings. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not policy. The outcome of the vote was no-consensus with all of our SC natives supporting it, along with most of our Slavic-language speakers. Trying to refer to that vote seriously is utter ludicrous, since Ullmann just recruited a bunch of his friends to meatpuppet. I think he probably should've been banned for that, but what do I know, I'm just the logical guy :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. But I don't see an easy way to solve this. The odd block and reversion won't solve the problem. Actually those are more like symptom of the problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The odd block and reversion is how we solve most vandalism. If all our SC natives think it's silly to have 4 duplicate sections (B/C/S and M) instead of one (SC), since it's all one language, then I'm going to treat these artards like the vandals they are. Politics doesn't belong on wiktionary. Except in the form of a definition. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First they created a bunch of missing entries, then they waited in shadows closely monitoring what would happen (I certainly didn't touch any of them apart from few accidents, just merging my own as usual), after which came flashy reverts and self-righteous appeals to "preserve deleted entries". And Ullmann's crappy "recovery bot" is regularly being run in the last few months. My free estimate of their collective stupidity is that they are likely to be compiling "evidence" which would undoubtedly result in yet another juicy cocktail of dirty lies, pseudoliberal propaganda, and nationalist hysteria directed towards executive branches of WMF, the only ones that could possibly make a difference to their advantage in all this (after failed coup at meta, and here we're firmly entrenched). As usual, it will be most amusing to observe organized malice backfiring on its perpetrators. --Ivan Štambuk19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for their reverts with my finger on the BANHAMMAR :)
I really love how Robert Ullmann doesn't have any knowledge of these languages. Is it just me or is it apparent that more of the people who voted in favor of the unification have actually been learning SC, whereas the detractors (who aren't the nationalist natives) have completely ignored it since? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your observational abilities serve you well: ever since that vote took place a total of three additional regulars have started contributing Serbo-Croatian entries. I believe that the proper English phrase describing such ill-guided efforts to make a point would be dig one's own grave. Hopefully this will all end soon enough because I'm starting to feel like a cartoon superhero fighting goofy trickster-thieves and street thugs in an endless quest for justice. --Ivan Štambuk20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, but what is wrong with him recovering certain sections? What is wrong with having Serbo-Croatian in addition to the normal three languages on the same page? So long as they aren't complete copies of each other, I don't see why we can't have all four languages on the same page. Just my two cents, Razorflame16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're all the same language, and they will just be copies of each other. And it's not just three "normal languages". You're forgetting that they speak Serbo-Croatian in Montenegro. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite radical to jump in certain languages like sq, hi, and a bunch of others from where they were originally (-1, -2) all the way up to -4. That seems a bit like you are trying to appear like you know more than you actually do. Just an observation. I'm not saying that you do know more than you actually do, but that is what I observe from looking at your Userpage now. Razorflame16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you should be blocked for saying that because according to the blocking policy, things like that are considered personal attacks and are blockable offenses. Razorflame17:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and you should be blocked for lots of things, but whenever someone blocks you, you just get one of your buddies to undo it. Stupid questions get unfriendly answers. I have that warning on the top of this page, and if you don't want to heed the warning, then I'm not going to go out of my way to hold your hand and explain every little thing to you. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if you - someone I very openly despise and wish death upon - are going to communicate with me, it should probably be about something that you actually need an answer to. Not the jokes I put on my user page. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the blocks are undone is because they don't meet anything listed in the blocking policy. Being persistently unkind or uncivil towards another user is listed in the blocking policy as a blockable offense, and you know it, so therefore, you should be blocked. I don't do anything that could get me blocked, so there is no rationale to have me blocked. Furthermore, my "buddies", as you call them, are NOT my "buddies", but administrators with whom have problems with your blockings of me because they see them as inappropriate. Razorflame17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you being allowed to edit here as inappropriate. You edit frequently in languages you have absolutely no knowledge of and rely on others to clean up after you.
Now seriously, get the fuck off my talk page. I'm tired of dealing with you and you will be blocked if you continue to go out of your way to bother me with bullshit. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be totally honest, in my opinion, the only one in this discussion who deserves to be blocked for it is you. Razorflame may be frustrating at times (I know I've seen that) and I know you guys have some history but the responses you have made are not only totally unacceptable for anyone on this or any WMF project but in my in completely and totally unacceptable for anyone in anykind of position of trust. If you blocked him after these comments there is no doubt your bias in the matter would be clear and a desysop would be more then earned (though with some of your comments I wouldn't argue even without it). If you don't want to answer his question, don't. Blatant ad-hominem attacks (not to mention wishing his death)? He deserves far more respect then you. Jamesofur18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression admin's are some kind of special thing, they're humans like everyone else. it takes two to Tango: Razorflame persists in complaining about Opiaterein (tattling if you will); Opiaterein persists in making rude retorts in order to make Razorflame make a fool of himself (baiting perhaps). It seems horribly childish, maybe they'll grow up one day. Conrad.Irwin19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a wrong impression about what an admin is, as I, myself, am a admin on multiple projects and also an crat and oversighter. Barras19:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered this? It sounds to me like you're fed up with Wiktionary, I mean just look at your own user page. I volunteered for desysopping on the French Wiktionary after numerous arguments with other sysops, why not do the same? You might find it easier to take time away from Wiktionary, or concentrate on words, not other editors. I'm glad I've been desysopped there. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the tools (especially deletion) to be really useful, and I do really enjoy adding and contributing. There are just some people here I'd rather be without. They generally have the decency to leave me alone unless we absolutely have to communicate, but some... well. You surely see how that's going. I enjoy being an admin and being able to help newbs and whatnot, but some of them don't want to be helped... they want someone to follow them around with a dustpan and a kind word. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opiaterein. Will you, please, unblock user Sokac121? You've blocked him infinitely. But he meant nothing bad. He enriched the article, he wasn't blanking. Kubura00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting is not enriching. I'm not going to engage in the Serbo-Croatian debate with you. You need to learn to accept that you speak a few slightly different varieties of one language. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked him, because it's not our practice to indef-block a user, without warning, for a single questionable edit — and without even giving a block summary! But if Sokac121 is indeed here only to push a language-splittist POV, then he will inevitably be blocked again. —RuakhTALK00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I recently used the Template:sl-noun-n1 for creating the Slovenian section in geslo, but the genitive plural is gesel and it currently displays gesl. Does the template take additional parameters in order to display this particular case (addition of e in the genitive plural forms)? The uſerhight Bogormconverſation07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like one of the types of nouns I never got around to... I'll add an optional second parameter that will, in the case of dual and genitive plural, override the first one. So {{sl-noun-n1|gesl|gesel}} will do it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find that spelling in a Swedish text? Similar for the other ending in -seksualitet -- I have never seen them spelled with anything but an "x", so I'm getting curious when and where these spellings were accepted. \Mike16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opi, and sorry for my belated answer. Well first of all having all those declensions in one template is a great idea xD And talebelerdir / talebedirler , they're both correct. Plus the -cak is a general suffix used to make nouns from nouns or verbs. (Though it's an extreme one, salıncak and oyuncak are the most known derivations.) But right now I read the article about Aorist aspect from Wikipedia and I have some doubts about the templates now. I'm not sure if it's really aorist in Turkish. Well in Turkish there are 2 past tenses. "görülen geçmiş zaman" (the past tense which has been seen) and "duyulan geçmiş zaman" (the past tense which has been heard). The first one is like English simple past - "öğrenciydi" for example, means "he/she was a student." But if you say "öğrenciymiş", it means he/she is/was a student, but you've just learnt or heard about it. With verbs, "gelmiş" - "he/she came" but you didn't see him/her coming, you just saw the result or just heard it from someone else. I think this is not aorist aspect, is it? What's the suitable English title for this aspect? One more thing, I want to improve the conjugation template as well, but I'll need your help. I'll be really busy for 1-2 months and I don't think that I'll be able to be here frequently. Soo when I have time, I'll prepare a few things about conjugations and then send them to you. See you soon! Sinek18:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we definitely need a tr-conj-v for the ones with stems ending in vowels... but really, there are already a lot of tenses that aren't covered already. I noticed that what we have as the "aorist" endings in our -dir templates are only described as verbal endings in that Elementary Turkish book I have. (I've renamed the "to be" templates "predicative", which seems to fit, but I'm not sure what the Turkish word or its translation would be.) The book calls the -miş endings "past indefinite" while the -tim, -tin, -tik etc are called "past definite". We've got a lot to do @_@ — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say sorry for all the grief that I have caused you in the past. I've turned over a new leaf, so you won't see any of my previous behavior. I know that this might be hard for you to believe, but I truly am sorry for any past transgressions that we have had in the past, and I am hoping to start anew. I don't expect you to care much, and I will keep my distance from you in the future. I just wanted to let you know how sorry I was. Razorflame22:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This apology was not insincere. I've been editing in languages that I have some knowledge in. I've been keeping away from the ones I don't have any knowledge in. End of story. Razorflame15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look... you can believe that you speak a "separate language" because you use a couple of different words... but that doesn't make it true. If your only interest here is to get Croatian special status then you should go to Croatonational wiktionary. We're not interested in your politics. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word vrhunac can be attested in countless Bosniak/Croat/Serb writers, for centuries. It's definitely not one of those "Croatisms". Unlike, for example, the word vrelo that Roberta F. uses above and which I guarantee you absolutely no one in Croatia uses (in spoken language) in the sense "source, link". --Ivan Štambuk09:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lipi Ivane, a ča biš jin ti mogal ni povit kad ne pripovedaš hrvackim zajikom, batiš o srbohrvackom, a kadi ti bivaš i z kin povedaš po srbohrvacki to anke niki ne more reč vero j' to tako al ni, ma jušto tako ne znan za zemlju ka se Srbohrvatcka zove ni kadi ta stoji. Bušac --Roberta F.15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he is getting on your nerves, or if he is trying to push a specific agenda, a block is in order. A couple of days will give her time to think it over, and if, after the block, he comes back and continues to POV-push, then a permablock would suffice. Razorflame16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roberta fails to mention that most (>95%) of her compatriots wouldn't understand a word of what she wrote above (in an obscure Croatian dialect spoken by uneducated shepherds on the Adriatic islands). If you don't believe me go to any Croatian chatroom and ask a random interlocutor to translate that junk. When neo-Croatian becomes unintelligible to Serbs and Bosniaks, it will also become unintelligible to most of the Croats too. --Ivan Štambuk19:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A term having use among people who don't speak that language is really not that uncommon. In English it's really common for us to say "oh, we use that so much that it's practically English anyway" but if you re-add full sentences like that as Portuguese I will revert you. The fact that they are attested in Portuguese works does not make them Portuguese. Their being well known to Portuguese speakers does not make them Portuguese. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From your response, I didn't understood exactly how you conclude whether a term is Portuguese or not. Since you mentioned English, I assume that, not only Portuguese but English (and presumably all languages that you edit) follow the same criteria. You then opposed attestation in Portuguese works and knowledge of Portuguese speakers as methods of inclusion of terms as "Portuguese" to Wiktionary. If, similarly, attestation in English works and knowledge of English speakers are also not enough to attest a English term that is otherwise somehow attestable in other languages, then hors d'œuvre, karate, zebra and Zweihänder are not English terms. Is my interpretation correct? --Daniel.00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's saying that the simple fact that numerous speakers of one language understanding something from another language doesn't necessarily make it part of the first language. I suggest you start by adding the quotes to the citations tab, and then we'll have something concrete to discuss. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. I can say "myliu tave" all day long, but it doesn't make it English. Karate, hors d'oeuvre... these are naturalized derivations frequently used in specific fields of expertise - not just terms spouted by any twat with a dictionary and a high-school education. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in. I don't support "I love you" as a Portuguese phrase but you got me thinking about Japanese. The phrase アイ・ラブ・ユー (ai-rabu-yū) is the Japanese transliteration (perhaps, awkward, since it sounds almost like "I rub you" or "I rob you") of the English "I love you". You may know, that it's not common for Japanese people to confess about their feelings directly like 愛している, so they either say あなたは大好きです, which literally means "I like you very much" or they also often use アイ・ラブ・ユー as a confession, perhaps it's less embarrassing for them to say it in English. アイ・ラブ・ユー is the name of a movie and a TV drama, there are 247,000 Google hits for the phrase in Japanese. This phrase in English is known to everybody and is used in songs, etc. I don't think this phrase should be flagged under other European languages, especially in Roman letters but I have a feeling that in Japanese it has become a synonym for something Japanese men can't utter in their own language :) Just my two cents. You can ignore it, just wanted to share. --Anatoli00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took Japanese for a year in high school, so I know a bit about that. I would say that アイ・ラブ・ユー is a particularly frequent, semi-naturalized borrowing, so I wouldn't really have any argument against including it - especially if usage notes are provided. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is with regret that I observe a heavy mix of languages. I am not against loanwords but when e.g. Indians speak in a mixture of Hindi and English, I feel sorry for Hindi. English has a heavy influence on all languages but there must be a line between the influence and just a mix. --Anatoli00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are lines between loanwords and some guy using a sentence or term from English while talking in whatever other language... Vlad Nabokov used a bunch of French in Lolita... but that French didn't automatically become English because it was used in the middle of a bunch of English ranting. Even if 15 other authors had used the exact same sentences, they wouldn't be English... they would be French sentences used by English people.
Single words I can see easily being naturalized, like karate, kungfu... there's simply no equivalent for some of these things. Some languages like Icelandic and Lithuanian prefer to make neologisms instead of borrowing words, where I can see Portuguese borrowing something like iceberg more directly... but "the book is on the table" is just way too specific to say "oh yeah, that's Portuguese - I can tell just by looking at it". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-D There are some words that will require another parameter (ZWNJ=-) to prevent a superfluous character that breaks the connection between Arabic letters where there would be no connection anyway, but that's a bit specific and not important to acceleration... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed too obvious to be an actual accident, but I've done far stupider things so...I figured it'd be ok to "fix" :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I opened بالغ, a little box popped up saying "comparative" and when i closed that one another one came up and said "superlative" which was kinda funny :D But it's not doing it now on other entries. The tr= still hides in {{fa-word}} on the accelerated pages, though :( — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks? He may be an adherent of Croatian as a separate langauge section, but he's brand new and hadn't been given any welcome or advice. He probably didn't know anything about format, and might benefit more from a shorter (1 hour) block to give time to read policy pages like WT:ELE. Perhaps we ought to write a bit of boilerplate for new sh language editors explaining the current situation, and what is (and is not) accepted by the community at present. We seem to be getting a lot of that crowd lately. --EncycloPetey02:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked him once for plain unnecessary rudeness and namecalling, and when it was over he just made a snide little comment. He kept being an ass to Ivan, and putting {{hr-adj}} in SC entries, so I don't think he's likely to be swayed. I was only going to make it one week, but I don't know if that'll be long enough for me to calm down when he comes back and inevitably starts doing it all over again.
We've been getting a lot of them partly because one of the dissenters posted a message on Croatian Wikipedia about the voting policy vote that's going on. Yaaay — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, is there a Romanian word for (deprecated template usage)doge? My dictionaries have none and the ro:Wikipedia entry seems to call it an Italian word (but also seems to have had its content translated directly from the English article). --EncycloPetey02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can taste non-American movies, I suggest that you take a look at some of the ex-yu cinematography, because we have the sickest type of humor in the world. Even by their very name, e.g. Lepa sela lepo gore "pretty villages are burning prettily" ^_^ My all-time favorite: Ko to tamo peva. --Ivan Štambuk18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the beginning of one from jugoslavia, I can't remember the name... but it was really odd to me how there were all these comic events taking place while the city was getting bombed :O I'm gonna have to get really stoned before seeing some of those films :D I really want to see one called Život i smrt porno bande, though. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love Borat. :-D (Though if he came here, of course, I would block him instantly. Totally untrustworthy editor. Most of his "Kazakh" is actually Hebrew.) —RuakhTALK21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, stupidly I actually thought your issue was with people making offensive jokes. But now I realize it's just about people making offensive jokes about people who don't look like them. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was about people making offensive jokes on Wiktionary. So far as I know, neither Borat nor Sarah Silverman has done that. —RuakhTALK00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I love Jews. I'd marry one, but they tend to hate me. Also I'd have to go to Canada, or Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden... or you know, one of those places where Jesus isn't the Vice President. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Account must predate start of vote by one week[edit]
Yup. Remove anyone's vote (possibly apart from abstain, as that's a null vote) on either side. You have my blessing. Although, where are such records available? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but I got reverted pretty quickly so fuck it. :) If you go to the public logs for a user, one will say "Account created" or "Account created automatically" or something like that, like here — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, it seems that you have an unreasonable bias against Razorflame. I am hereby asking that you not take matters with this user into your own hands, that you not block him, and that you please try not to interact with him. Every time you do, it looks like abusive behaviour and harassment even when I'm trying to look at it objectively. And trust me, I do not take RF's side in things, but you're stepping way over the line here. --Neskayacontribs – talk?15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I care about Wiktionary being as correct as possible. Oh wait... No, that seems like what I should care about. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Block log); 11:27 . . Neskaya (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Opiaterein (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 15 seconds (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Learn to take criticism. You're not always right.)
Methinks that Neskaya is telling you that she is taking on the role of inspecting RF's edits for possible mistakes, dispensing appropriately tuned corrective justice as necessary. --Ivan Štambuk15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is Neskaya going to check for mistakes when Neskaya doesn't speak all the languages that RF thinks he knows? Even I can't take it all on. I'm getting really tired of this whole stupid pile of nonsense. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually working on trying to get him to limit himself to English and things that need doing in English, and sometimes it actually works. In the mean time, every time that you block him/intimidate him/et cetera, every single bit of what I do gets undone. It is possible to work with him, but you're going about it the wrong way right from the start. --Neskayacontribs – talk?18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you're the only person who is capable of dealing with him and everyone else doesn't know what they're doing. lol like you've been watching how I deal with him from the start. K. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs stress marks (<ˈ> invalid IPA characters (<>) and <ˌ> invalid IPA characters (<>)). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're gonna show things like aspiration, which isn't phonemic in English, make the transcription phonetic (using brackets). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. I'll put stress on the only multisyllabic word, but I don't think the secondary stress is predictable enough to warrant inclusion... too dynamic. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the most part. Secondary stress depends a lot on pragmatics in that phrase. In natural (i.e., non-boasting &c.) speech, I reckon secondary stress falls on (deprecated template usage)have. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd put it on 'have' if I were following up with something else... like "I have a big penis, but blabla" something. So I think it depends on context, the person's personal speaking style... there's just too many factors to include secondary stress. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, (deprecated template usage)have receives extra stress (denoted by <ˈˈ> invalid IPA characters (<>)) because of emphasis, which is atypical usage; the same can happen with any phrase, if one is making a point that hinges on a particular word (it can happen with intraverbal stress, too, like when people make a point of distinguishing (deprecated template usage)affect: [ˈˈæ.fɛkt] from (deprecated template usage)effect: [ˈˈiː.fɛkt]). However, secondary stress will vary in that phrase, so much so that it isn't "predictable enough to warrant inclusion", as you said. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have done it if I weren't feeling vindictive, and like there's a disproportionate amount of hypocrites here :) Every passing day brings me another reason to hate this utterly thankless business. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence with the credit cards is completely useless in whole countries, if not continents (Third World), whereas bragging about penes is at least universal and has been common for at least several millennia (whilst credit cards are an emergent contraption). The uſerhight Bogormconverſation09:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pronunciation of I have a big penis; I have a question related to that entry: would it be more common in English to say "I have a big penis" or "my penis is big"? In Portuguese, the literal translation of the I have part would probably be considered redundant for a man to say. --Daniel.09:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We actually don't say penis very often, it'd be much more likely to hear someone say that they've got a big dick or cock. But yeah, in English you'd probably say have or got. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol no, not either. Martin linked to it and said that since he made it a red link that someone would probably create it. So I did. :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YES! I hate books whose titles end with "A Novel". They are nearly always vanity-published self-edited bullshit about vampire sex. If I must cite one, I make a point of removing "A Novel" from the title. Equinox◑12:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be in my cave until this retarded Vampires vs Werewolves thing is over. Until then, plz supply me with Dan Brown and Anne Rice LoLoL. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a second look at קויפֿן? I was expecting the word order to be different (Ikh hab a groyse tish gekoyft) based on German, but since everything I can find online points to gekoyft coming before groyse tish, I'm not so sure now. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The little voice in my head that reads the sentence and tells me if it is right or not says that it is right. Gekoyft can very rarely be at the end of the sentence, but I don't remember the exact rule for it, and therefore it's better to place it before the object. --Neskaya … gawonisgv?18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. I'll readily admit my love of sex and I think it's silly to have a phrasebook that excludes a sex section especially when there are tons of paper phrasebooks devoted to sex and foul language. If we pride ourselves on containing "all words in all languages", why be prudish about the phrasebook? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the last thing you're expecting me to say, but I can't think of a single reason to disagree. However, just for the sake of sanity we should support the 'conclusion' of the 'vote' going on at WT:RFD. No maverick stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not many of the people that took part in that "debate" if you can call it that have decided to comment on my crushing logic :D So if I were to close it I'd just say "no consensus, if you want to bring it up again later bring logic and not bias" but yeah that wouldn't really score me any points in any positive categories. I just think most of the opposition to sex phrasebook stuff was so biased that it'd be impossible to make them see reason. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a number of other admin types have deleted this entry, should probably stay deleted. Since you are very fond of it I think a reasonable thing to do would be to push it into your userspace and delete it from the main namespace which would appease all of the very many delete voters. This is what I am now going to do. Have a nice day! - [The]DaveRoss00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not probably stay deleted. I think that the reasonable thing to do is for you not to push your conservative morality into a dictionary. --Ivan Štambuk20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that's why I've been pushing the entry back. I don't have anything for or against it in particular; it's simply important that ridiculously flawed logic is not used as a justification. --Ivan Štambuk21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the Persian translation. I was about to change for من مسیحی هستم this morning but I saw your edit. Are pronouns usually dropped in Persian in this type of sentences? --Anatoli00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking me to unblock him but I'm a bit reluctant. Was there something wrong with his Polish entries? Any "promises" broken again? --Ivan Štambuk13:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that every single time someone tells him to stop messing with a language because he's making mistakes or doing something questionable, he just moves on to another language. I don't speak Polish at all, so I don't know if there's anything wrong with them... but until Maro or someone notices he's doing Polish, we have no way of knowing.
He also claimed for a long time that he was eo-2, but he doesn't even know such basic grammar points as accusatives... or the basic personal pronouns. So if he can't even really edit in a language that he supposedly has an intermediate knowledge of, I see no reason to keep believing that he'll ever start to edit more cautiously. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time RF asked me to unblock him I just said 'no'. Just ban him IMO, he's a nice enough guy but lacks responsibility. We're not Facebook, being 'nice' doesn't exempt you from blocks. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I don't indef block him is that I expect someone to come and undo my block, but I'd be delighted to change it if it doesn't twist anyone's knickers up too much. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got this far in my talk with him:
He promises to only edit in English, Esperanto, Ido, Spanish and Italian. He claims to have enough grasp of these languages to make basic entries, and that he makes very few errors. He won't add example sentences.
He promises not to edit in any other languages. He will only edit other languages if there is another knowledgeable editor willing to verify his edits, making necessary corrections and stuff.
I think that this block was unwarranted because he didn't do anything wrong. But I understand your concern for him editing in languages that he doesn't speak, with nobody around to check it. What do you think about the compromise above? --Ivan Štambuk13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He always says that... literally every time, he says "ok I'll only edit in these few" but that typically lasts a week. His promises are worth about a nickel. For more than a year he's followed this pattern. Editing a language he doesn't know, someone telling him to stop until he knows more of that language, then him moving on to another language. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But he claims that he'll persist in his promise now, because he knows that the community doesn't have much patience left and violating it would bring indefblock upon him. I think that we should give him another chance. He's a good-faith editor, and with proper restraints he could be a productive force. I'll unblock him now and ask him to confirm this on his talkpage. Please don't be mad :P --Ivan Štambuk13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"But he claims that he'll persist in his promise now". He's been claiming that for how without actually doing it? Three months, six, twelve? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened, happened. Everybody deserves a second chance. People learn from their mistakes. Razorflame is willing to make a clean start, and we should let him do it. He's aware that if he fails to uphold his promise this time, that he'll find himself blocked for a long, long time. I see this outcome as nothing but a win-win situation, really.. --Ivan Štambuk14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a second chance and maybe a third... but not a seventeenth. Razorflame does not learn from his mistakes. He has made them over and over and over and over and over. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first and only time that I am serious about this. I will seriously only edit those five langauges. If I stray at any point, you may block me indefinitely. This will be the final chance. Razorflame14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should've been serious about it from the damn beginning. Every time you made a promise you should've been serious about it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that now and am ready to continue on with my work here while keeping to the promise that I am serious about. Razorflame14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You understand that now? You're not five years old, you should've known long ago that when you say you're going to do something, you do it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a wise Futurama character once said: Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me. —RuakhTALK14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closest Hebrew translation would be aní tsaríkh shtiyá ("I need a drink") or aní tsaríkh mash(eh)ú lishtót ("I need something to drink"), or — slightly more formal — aní tsaríkh ma lishtót ("I need what to drink"); but to me it feels more natural to say aní tsaríkh lishtót mash(eh)ú ("I need to drink something"). And Google seems to agree — "אני צריך לשתות משהו" beats "אני צריך משהו לשתות" — but both are pretty rare on the Web. I guess online isn't where people express their thirst. So what I'm asking is, is there any guidance anywhere on the trade-off between closeness of translation and naturalness of resulting phrase? —RuakhTALK03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to prefer something natural sounding and that people do actually say or would actually say... I mean there's no point in teaching people to say something that will sound weird to native speakers, right? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right — but there's also no point in teaching people to say something that doesn't mean what they think it means. Hence the trade-off. :-P (And it's not exactly that aní tsaríkh mash(eh)ú lishtót sounds *weird*, it's just, not quite what I'd say. But to be honest, "I need a drink" isn't quite what I'd say, either, if I meant something non-alcoholic: I'd say "I need something to drink" or "I need to drink something.") —RuakhTALK11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think here we're reaching the lines between translating and interpreting... we can always give literal translations in phrasebook entries, be it in etymology section or as a little {{gloss}} to the side of the numbered translation... and I definitely agree that "I need a drink" automatically makes me think of that kind of drink. But then, instead of "I need something to drink", I'd probably just say "god, I'm thirsty", so I suppose on the finer points there's always some level of personal style :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know someone else told you about the question marks appearing instead of accented characters, but I wanted to remind you, as it's been a little while, and as I'm posting anyway with another matter, namely the arrow directions: You set it up that they could go either way, as you weren't sure what people preferred, and thanks, but do you think that now you might choose one? IMO inconsistency looks worse than either choice.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, okay, sorry, let me try that again. Two issues:
In the links to nearby words appearing beneath language headers, letters with diacritics (or many of them) appear as question marks instead of as they should. (I know this was mentioned to you already somewhere, but it's been a while.)
Some « of « those « lists » appear » like » this, with arrows pointing in both directions outward from the middle, while » others » appear » like » this, with arrows pointing forward only. (I know you set it up that way so it could later be determined which is better, but I really think inconsistency is worse than either alternative.)
Hey Opiaterein, I've only heard of the suffix -dad before, but it seems as though -idad is a well used suffix as well. Have you any idea as to what its' meaning is?
I also want to say this, and I mean it this time, sincerely, that I am sorry for any frustrations that I have caused you in the past, and that I would like to ask if you would consider wiping the past between us away so that we can possibly work together in the future to make the English Wiktionary a better dictionary. Would you be willing to do so? Thanks, Razorflame19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That was what I thought it meant because I already knew what -dad meant, so I figured it meant the same thing as -dad because of how it is used. Thanks for the help, Razorflame20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maltese has no infinitive (which is the "to" form) and like other Semitic languages the verb is listed in the 3rd person singular past tense. While I'd prefer to use past tense verbs and give the definition as "he gave" or "he used", I don't think that would catch on. So I'm just going halfway. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few questions about how Japanese words are sorted here. Since you corrected my edit to ジョックストラップ, I assume you know our policy on Japanese sorting (which I can't find) or have a good reason for your edit. I would like to know where you stand since I've seen you give good reasons backing up pretty much all of your edits. So I ask your opinion and reasoning on these questions:
When is the hidx parameter really necessary? (I ask because of an issue between hiragana and katakana that I will get to after this.)
(for katakana) Should the hidx be written as it is with dakuon and handakuon or should the dakuon and handakuon be written in their seion counterparts? (Same issue - they don't appear to be sorted differently)
When are the apostrophes necessary? (I ask because of your edit to ジョックストラップ, in which you left them out.)
The issue is that I was looking through Category:Japanese hiragana and Category:Japanese katakana to see if we want dakuon and handakuon to be sorted separately from seion, and I saw that they are separated in katakana but not hiragana. Words that start with "shi" are separated from "ji" words here but mixed with "ji" words here. When the hidx parameter is used correctly, it mixes hiragana, but katakana are separated whether or not hidx is used. Compare ジョックストラップ whose hidx you started with し and ジルコニウム whose hidx I started with じ but were both sorted under ジ regardless. Your thoughts? Ultimateria04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only had experience with a handful of truly Japanese dictionaries, but the ones I've dealt with sort by syllabic spelling without tenten. So か が カ ガ (ka, ga (hira), ka, ga (kata)) would be sorted under ka (か) し じ シ ジ (shi, ji (hira), shi, ji (kata)) would be sorted under shi (し). This applied to every syllable in a word. Therefore there ジ and プ in ジョックストラップ would not be sorted as separate letters from し and ふ (シ and フ).
Why we should use Hiragana for sorting here rather than Katakana... well, why use the non-native spelling (kata) over the native spelling (hira)? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 05:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't really an idea.... When you're a highschool sophomore taking Japanese and you really want to learn it... doesn't it make sense to grab a dictionary? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opiaterein. About pulbar as a Danish translation of fuckable; it is easily created from pule + -bar, and I understand immediately what is meant, but still I regard it as a protologism. A Google search in Danish revealed 8 hits, which were all in reality Norwegian. Alternatives like "knebbar" and "bollebar" are also too rare to include in my view.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the little I've seen, he hasn't done anything that really disturbs me, but yes... this was an odd one. "neagra" would be a definite-article form, but that's not necessary since marea is already definite.... I've redirected it to Marea Neagră, so that should take care of the issue. Thanks for bringing this to me — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heyya! Do you know which one is the true Hindi translation of clinical psychology? नैदानिक मनोविज्ञान or चिकित्सकीय मनोविज्ञान ? Sinek15:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shabdkosh.com gives the definitions of नैदानिक (naidanik) as clinical and diagnostic, while चिकित्सकीय (cikitsakiy) doesn't come up at all, but it does get over a hundred thousand google hits, so I'd say it's safe to assume that it is a relatively well-used word... I can't find the root words of either adjective, but since the Hindi wikipedia defines नैदानिक मनोविज्ञान as clinical psychology, I'd say it's safe that at least that one is accurate. चिकित्सकीय मनोविज्ञान also gets very few google hits, so it might mean the same thing and just be something that isn't really used. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm got it. "नैदानिक मनोविज्ञान" is the article in Hindi Wikipedia for clinical psychology. But in the article मनोविज्ञान, clinical psychology is listed as "चिकित्सकीय मनोविज्ञान". That's why I asked Sinek22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, नैदानिक मनोविज्ञान seems to be much much more common so maybe चिकित्सकीय मनोविज्ञान was put in by someone from a part of India where Hindi is a secondary language and the word चिकित्सकीय is closer to their native language. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Shouldn't they just be called e.g. Kurigram. The Wikipedia article starts with the text "Kurigram (Bengali: কুড়িগ্রাম) is a district in North-Eastern Bangladesh." SemperBlotto18:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the titles contain "district" and "division". Partly because there will sometimes be ambiguity, as every division contains a district and sometimes a subdistrict and city bearing the same name. So, if I ever decide to actually buckle down and do entries for the names without district and division attached, I'll have to keep senses for every applicable... thing. :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. This template (and, I suppose, others) doesn't show a headword, and doesn't add the word to the Romanian nouns category. See program#Romanian as an example. Is it supposed to? Or is it being used incorrectly? — This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs).
Program. It's OK!, E-n regula! Eu am observat "anomalia", n-am stiut de unde a venit, dar nu e asta o problema! Asa-i este in "live"!WernescU15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sing.-Pl.: OK, nu este nici o problema. Am facut asa, pentru ca in romaneste exista de regula, deosebite forme intre m,f si n ceea ce nu-i specific pentru engleza si franceza! Daca voi mai "gresi" cateodata, sper sa mi se scuze. Numai bine!WernescU17:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to en.wikt and try to understand how the Swedish words are organized here. Turns out I arrived at an exciting moment when everything is going to be renamed. Do you have any statistics on how many articles use each of the sv- templates? I guess I could extract that from the latest or next XML dump, but maybe you did this already? Or is there some toolserver tool for this? --LA222:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, really... however, you can see what pages link to a template. For example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:sv-noun. (There's a link that says "What links here" off on the left, in the "Toolbox"). You can sorta estimate how many templates link there by adjusting how many entries to show per-page. You might try asking Conrad for a numbered list. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the beer parlour, you wrote "...be brought into line with the rest of our declension and conjugation templates (they currently float to the right) but before I edit the templates to sit on the left, I need someone to move them from their various positions in entries to ====Inflection==== or ====Conjugation==== sections." But is this style documented anywhere? Wiktionary:Declension redirects to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Additional headings, which only mentions "declensions" under the ===Noun=== heading. There is no mention of any ====Inflection==== or ====Declension==== heading there. I'm doing some of the conversion, but I'd prefer to have written guidelines.
I don't remember offhand where it was, but at some point it was decided that only a few things (like images, in particular) should be on the right side. However, one of the only things that wasn't affected by this decision was the body of Swedish conjugation and declension templates, because there were just so many of them. I got tired of it and moved them to the left, so now we just need for someone good with bots to figure out how to move the current templates from directly under ===Noun=== to a subsection.
As for Inflection vs Declension, that seems to vary by language. Our Latin and Greek editors prefer Inflection, but you'd have to ask them why - I'm not entirely sure. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —RuakhTALK 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
