User talk:Rory096

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

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary! If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Read our Transwiki process, if you plan to work on that.

Finally, you can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using [[w:pagename]], {{wikipedia}}, or {{wikipediapar|pagename}}. Please do not create redirects to Wikipedia pages, though. They don't work.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. this one > that one :o --Rory096 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Now I'm wondering what was so special about this entry that both of us were editing it all of a sudden. That were two edit conflicts! :-) — Vildricianus 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "tiny create" was flagged by the #vandalism-en-wt RC monitoring bot, so I looked at the article because I'm really, really bored. --Rory096 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anal retentive[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the version with the hypen is correct, but I wouldn't want to be labelled as anal-retentive. Anyway the version with two words is far too encyclopedic - I propose changing it to a simple "alternative spelling of". What do you think? SemperBlotto 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it's actually a copy of part of w:anal retentive, but I'm too lazy to look. --Rory096 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Rory, are all those pictures you tagged {speedy} in Wikicommons? I'd look, but haven't the time right now. --Dangherous 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but they're uploaded on Wikt now. Commons wouldn't take them because they don't have copyright info. --Rory096 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:project-wanted articles[edit]

Hello. Please do not immediately update the list of Wiktionary:project-wanted articles as soon as the new articles on the list are created. Part of the reason for having the list is to allow others to examine (and adjust, if necessary) newly created pages from the list. It's best to wait at least one day before updating the list. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking each definition before I removed them, or, if I created the entry, I would have someone on #wiktionary check it. Now that Wiktionary is growing and becoming rather large, if the words were left up there for a day after they were created the thing would be half bluelinks (and they'd mostly be things ending with ing and ed and the redlinks would be some non-English words, which defeats the whole purpose of the templates- to encourage new users to create articles). --Rory096 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The community disagrees. If you would like to change current policy, please propose the change to current practice in the Beer Parlour before implementing it. In particular, your entries for grinding and explaining were removed from the list mere minutes after the entries were created, and each was missing significant definitions--evenb whole parts of speech--which would have been caught by an experienced editor if they had been left blue for more than four minutes.
If you have been getting verification from someone first, then it doesn't show. I just re-edited obsess, which you had claimed to be both a transitive and intransitive verb, but you combined both meanings within a single definition. Who are you having proofread your newly created entries? --EncycloPetey 06:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the entry's history, it does not appear to be Rory096 who added that to obsess. (Please keep in mind that to native speakers, transitivity is a very abstract concept; to recognize it as significant is not common.) Actually, obsess looks like it probably never should have made it onto the list in the first place.
I don't know that any "policy" dictates anything about the "Wanted articles" teaser. But EncycloPetey, you are abosolutely correct when you say it is common practice to leave entries blue for a day or so, so a few sets of eyes can check on them. The other benefit is that articles from newcomers can be more easily wikified, to show newcomers what general "good" formatting is, by example.
BTW, I like the +/- thinggy. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at how I expanded the entries you created for scoring and dividing. --EncycloPetey 14:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Why does your sig have red strike-through? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal adjective[edit]

Hi, Rory. In your addition of "verbal adjective" to the redeemed entry, what does "verbal adjective" mean? I was under the impression that "verbal adjective" is a general term for adjectives made from verbs, and that in English, verbal adjectives are just the two participles (-ed and -ing) and other derivatives like "-able", and "-worthy". Is there some sense of redeemed that is different from the past participle of redeem? Rodasmith 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be the correct phrase (I got 4 hours of sleep last night; I'm not 100%), but there's a difference between redeemed as in "I redeemed myself when I went to church" and "Jesus has blessed that dude; he is redeemed." I think. --Rory096
In general "verbal adjective" is not added to the declined verb definition. If an -ed form is worth identifying independently as an adjective, it's usually done under a separate ===Adjective=== header. — Vildricianus 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, however, there is no separate adjective meaning. (I've been much more confused on much more sleep, BTW.) Rory is right, that his two examples above exhibit different parts of speech for "redeem". The first shows it as a simple past tense verb (not a verbal adjective), while the second shows it as the past participle (a verbal adjective). It's confusing because past participles appearing after the various inflections of "to have" seem much more like verbs than they seem to be adjectives. However, they are, in fact, the same part of speech as the past participle used attributively:
  • "Jesus redeemed that blessed dude." (simple past tense/not a verbal adjective)
  • "Jesus has redeemed that blessed dude." (past participle/verbal adjective)
  • "Jesus has blessed that dude; he is redeemed." (past participle/verbal adjective)
I hope that makes sense. Rodasmith 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so simple past and past participle suffice, don't they? — Vildricianus 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no need for a separate "verbal adjective" note. Rodasmith 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. (BTW, I'm a dude) --Rory096 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Rory, and thanks for your quick welcome. I couldn't immediately find an answer, so I thought I'd ask you: Does Wiktionary have a policy about pictures? My own feeling is that all noun entries should have photos, but perhaps other contributors disagree. For example, how about spatula? Dbenbenn 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do welcome pictures, but they have to be free (GFDL, one of the acceptable CCs, PD, etc) and uploaded on Commons (the "upload file" links to the Commons upload), as there really isn't much of a fair use rationale for a dictionary. --Rory096 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Query: I've noted that you use the AutoWikiBrowser here - I've used it quite a bit on the 'pedia, but how would I be able to use that tool on Wiktionary? Do I need authorization of some kind? And how exactly does it work with the browser itself? Cheers! bd2412 T 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the newest version comes with it, just click "select language and project" in the "file" menu. You just need to be approved for it on pedia, as there isn't yet a seperate thing. It works the same way as on pedia, though "general fixes" are a bit messed up right now, IIRC. Ask That Guy, From That Show! (the AWB dev who adapted it to wikt) or go to #autowikibrowser for more info, since I don't really know much. --Rory096 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! bd2412 T 03:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now *that* was funny...[edit]

I saw the notice that I had a new talkpage edit, but couln't get to it right away. When I came back from meta:, you had already reverted the vandalism. Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Actually, it was a rather lucky coincidence, considering that I've been away for a few days because my computer went boom and I've just gotten back on now. :) --Rory096 04:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Rory. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you over it, but the page title and the heading at the top of the page were much more recognizeable when it was located at . :-). The reasoning you gave for reverting my edit was that people can find your page when they type ":-)" into the search bar. Wasn't that also the case when it was at . :-)? Rod (A. Smith) 04:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because then people would have to type ". :-)" into the search bar (that is, if they wanted to get directly there, I suppose they could be redirected, but redirects are generally bad.) --Rory096 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirects are generally bad, but this is quite obviously not the general case. Rod (A. Smith) 06:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Letting you know - cheers! bd2412 T 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]