User talk:Stephen G. Brown

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


May 2017[edit]


I just wanted to make sure if you removed the second audio link in this entry on purpose? Thx —Julien D. (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on purpose. It was the same voice, but he mispronounced the word. He said "ałkʼesdisí". —Stephen (Talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Do you know the translation of this word? It has something to do with the roots of plants. DTLHS (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Done: tillering. —Stephen (Talk) 07:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Could you please check if this entry makes sense? I was trying to clean up after an anon. The given name and surname do have a few hundred bearers. I wonder if the given name would be partly a title misinterpreted? Also you seem to classify English spellings of Navajo surnames as "Navajo".--Makaokalani (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

These English spellings of Navajo terms, especially those used as personal names, are problematic. They come from words that are Navajo, and, with English respellings, they are used in English to refer to certain Navajos, yet they aren't quite English, but are hardly Navajo anymore. The Navajo word hastiin refers to mature males (something like Mr., elder, or sir). English naming conventions (given name + surname) were recently forced on the Navajo. The Bureau of Indian Affairs made all Navajos select names according to the English template, something which is alien to the Navajo culture. The BIA also required they use English spelling and no diacritics for those names, so a lot of weird stuff like this came out of it.
I cleaned it up as well as I can. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]


Привет, Стивен. Ты не мог бы пожалуйста сделать кхмерскую статью для សមមិត្ត, по-видимому слово происходит от пали samamitta? У неё разные транслитерации, не знаю, как лучше оформить. Это слово использовалось красными кхмерами в значении «товарищ», не так-ли? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Привет, Анатолий. Я сделал. —Stephen (Talk) 09:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Спасибо, Стивен! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Telugu proverbs[edit]

Kindly go through the discussion with SemperBlotto. Can you help me, whether the changes made are o.k.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

    Hi there. I don't think that the translations of these should be a single term (e.g. "like a donkey carrying sandal powder") but should be linked as individual words (because the translation will not exist as such in English). Also "sandal" should be "sandalwood". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your advise. I am taking the translations directly from the reference quoted (without changing). Can you give some example of how to link the translations to each of the English word. Thank you.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    As you have suggested I have made some changes in some pages about Category:Telugu proverbs. Please check whether they are fine.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I looked at a couple of the proverbs and I think they are good, with one possible problem. In a few proverbs, I do not understand the deeper meaning. For example, the translation of అందని పూలు దేవునికి అర్పణ is "An offering to the deity of the flowers which cannot be reached." I understand the words, but I cannot understand what it means. If you know the deeper meaning, it would be good to explain the meaning. —Stephen (Talk) 06:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
అందని ద్రాక్షపండ్లు పుల్లన is another Telugu proverb with similar explanation. In both, when you are not able to reach the target, you consider it as bad.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There are two published works by M.W.Carr on Telugu proverbs, both are available in google books (Telugu proverbs (1868) and Supplement (1868)). There are about 2700 proverbs with English translations. I am using them as resources. But as you have mentioned, some of them does not have explanation. Can I use them as quotations for the Wiktionary entries. Is there any limitation, in Wiktionary, in using them as separate Proverb pages. Kindly clarify my doubt and if possible, we can discuss about it any other platform. I do not want them to be removed, though the language is a bit old.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Telugu proverbs (1868) and the Supplement (1868) both look good. I think they will be helpful. Yes, I think it will be okay to use them as quotations. I don't think there is any limitation. —Stephen (Talk) 07:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, sir. I will continue to create separate pages for these Telugu proverbs and wherever possible add them as quotation in the corresponding Wiktionary pages. It will become a big collection of Telugu words in English Wiktionary.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Telugu plural forms[edit]

User:Octahedron80 made some programming changes in the Telugu noun template documentation and Module:te-headword. I do not how they work. Can you help me in understanding how they work and how to frame the rules to applying to Telugu plurals.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

    He wrote in my talkpage as: Hello. I am working about common Telugu plural rules in Module:te-headword. Could you tell me if there are more common rules to apply to noun, for new usage of Template:te-noun? For special cases, they will not be put there. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Module:te-headword is written with Lua Programming Language. I don't know Lua at all. Both User:Jberkel and User:Wikitiki89 say that they are expert Lua programmers. For some other editors who know Lua, see Category:User Lua coder-3. —Stephen (Talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Two German nouns[edit]

Hi Stephen. The German nouns Bessarabiendeutscher and Wolhyniendeutscher have adjective templates in their declension sections. Is this correct? If not, could you correct them please. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is correct. If I remember correctly, nominalized adjectives in German are inflected like the adjectives themselves. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 17:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Noun and adjective are two separate words: Bessarabiendeutscher (noun) and bessarabiendeutsch (adjective).
And Wolhyniendeutscher (noun) and wolhyniendeutsch (adjective).
Their declensions are correct, though. I guess it's just a minor hiccough in template naming. —Stephen (Talk) 10:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks. My bot doesn't know what to do with them - I'll just ignore them. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Telugu frequency list[edit]

The Appendix:Sanskrit frequency list 1 is very good and useful. Can you help me and prepare the Appendix:Telugu frequency list. This would help me to give priority for creating new pages of more importance. Thank you.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I searched for Telugu frequency lists, but I did not find any. I have left an inquiry at WT:GP#Frequency list. They say that they can get a list of Telugu words used in the articles of the Telugu Wikipedia. I do not know what form it will be in or how useful it will be. —Stephen (Talk) 22:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your initiative has given the list of 10,000 Telugu words in the order of frequency in Telugu Wikipedia articles. As pointed out, I am not going to create an entry for every word. But it helps me a lot in my work. Thank you very much sir.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of blocking and page-deleting powers by SemperBlotto; de-cratting and de-sysopping required[edit]

According to the wiktionary page Help:Dispute resolution, under the section "another user", I should report this type of thing to "a friendly administrator". The offender in this case is himself an administrator, and even a bureaucrat, and must be stripped of his powers for abusing them, so I must report his misconduct to bureaucrats (who have the power to edit user rights). The following is the situation:

I recently created my userpage before I started editting the mainspace.
My userpage was simply this:

" ====================>

-looks like a spear "

That's an ASCII graphic of a spear, and it's perfectly fine for a userpage.
SemperBlotto deleted my userpage, and, in the deletion summary, he stated "no usable content given"- a policy which applies only to word/term articles, not userpages, so apparently SemperBlotto mistook my userpage for a word/term entry. My username could be mistaken for a word/term entry, so that is certainly possible.

I re-created my userpage, noting in my edit summary that SemperBlotto carelessly mistook my userpage for a word entry.
I figured that that would be the end of it; problem solved.

But, to my surprise, SemperBlotto felt that his sense of dominance was violated by me pointing out his error (or deliberate act of violating the page deletion policy, as it probably was), so he re-asserted his sense of dominance by deleting my userpage yet again, and by blocking me for 31 hours, and by giving the false and defamatory block explanation "adding nonsense/gibberish".

Dominance-asserting aggression is the single worst possible use of any form of power, and any person who uses power for that purpose should be stripped of that power, and severely punished. Due to the failure of legislatures to pass the appropriate penal laws for abuses of wiki administrator powers, SemperBlotto does not face the possibility of any real-world punishment for his offenses; but he must, at the very least, be stripped of his administrator and bureaucrat privileges by a fellow bureaucrat, such as yourself, so that he can no longer abuse his page-deletion and blocking powers for the purpose of dominance-asserting aggression.

Miraculous Spear (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have deleted the page myself, and I wish he had shown some tact in this case, he wasn't completely wrong in deleting the user page, and it certainly doesn't merit the drastic actions you're requesting.
First of all, we have a very strict policy on user pages that's quite different from Wikipedia's: as a smaller project, we get a lot of people whose only action here is to set up a user page just like they have on Wikipedia, with all the bells and whistles. Having planted their flag in the provinces, they go back to Wikipedia. The consensus here is that a user page is solely for the purpose of helping you do dictionary work by showing what you have to offer the project, among other things. We don't allow user boxes (except for directly dictionary-related one's like Babel) and we frown on most personal stuff for people who haven't contributed anything here (we're much more relaxed once someone has shown that they're not just here to show off their user page).
It's also important to know that patrolling new edits here is a monumental and thankless task, and SemperBlotto does more of it than anyone. It involves scanning through hundreds of edits every day, most of which are in languages you don't speak, and looking for a small percentage of carefully-hidden attempts to delete content, add nonsense, slant things to a particular point of view, attack people, or plant spam/advertising. It's very hard to keep positive and polite when all of this is going on, and you know that some of it is always going to get by you. It also doesn't help that some of the worst editors are the most likely to complain if anyone does anything to their edits. In other words, I think you're misreading this by saying it's about dominance, rather than simple grumpiness.
As I said, I don't wholly approve of the actions in question, and I really appreciate that you're already making contributions here, but you're asking for a lot. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Miraculous Spear, you have misunderstood. I can tell by what you wrote that you expect Wiktionary to be much more like Wikipedia. Wiktionary is not at all like Wikipedia. Please see Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians. For one thing, Wikipedians put all sorts of things in their user pages. I think they refer to them as "vanity" pages. On Wiktionary, we use our user pages for information that other editors need to know about us to judge our edits, areas of specialization, and areas of competence, including natural languages spoken (Babel box), computer languages, alphabets and scripts, formal education, etc. We do not permit the popular Wikipedia boxes such as "this user plays scrabble," "this user eats broccoli," or "this user is a Marxist." The ASCII spear graphic might have been overlooked if you had first included useful information, such as the languages you speak and your competence in them.
Maratha Soldier.jpg
The next misunderstanding, where you thought it was all about asserting dominance, was actually what we consider wheel warring. When an admin reverts or deletes a new editor's entry, you must not ignore the action and revert it. You should have tried to find out why your entry was deleted, and then avoid making that mistake in the future.
You are welcome to re-create your user page, but make sure that what you put in it is useful to the rest of us so that we can make a judgment regarding your edits. You can also include links, reminders, notes to self, and so on, that you need for the work you do here. For example, if you want to keep a list of pages that you intend to work on, or links to special resources that you like. Most people probably would not understand your ASCII spear, and it could be a distraction. You might include an image of a spear if you feel you can't live without it, but make the rest of what you include on your userpage helpful to the rest of us in understanding the quality of your edits. —Stephen (Talk) 02:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto is there anything in particular about this account that justified a block without warning for an edit to their own user page? If not, you deserve a firm trout slapping. bd2412 T 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember that far back. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, don't block newbs without warning. Consider yourself trout-slapped. bd2412 T 20:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

User:Dick Laurent[edit]

User:Dick Laurent, on whose Talk page you just pinged me, seems to have made a repeated habit of reverting pages without providing justification for doing so, and being uncommunicative and downright flippant when asked why they are doing so. Since you are an administrator who pinged me on their Discussion page, I am first appealing to you to get them to stop. I do not see there being any sort of consensus reachable by talking to them, unfortunately, as there has been no attempt on their part to communicate even when pressed. Ligata (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors who come here from Wikipedia often have trouble understanding why we do things as we do. On en.wikipedia there are over 2000 admins (last time I looked), plus a huge number of checkers. Here we have only a small handful of admins (I think around 20 active admins), and these few admins do the vast majority of the work here, from writing templates and modules, to creating entries, checking and verifying edits, patrolling for vandalism, etc. Our tiny panel of admins has to deal with many, many new entries from anons and others who only edit once or a few times and then quit, so we don't have the time for hundreds or even thousands of discussions every day (especially since most of the anons never reply). When it's really important to an editor to know the reason for a revert, he has to ask (politely, not angrily). I'm afraid you got on Dick's bad side from the moment of first contact. The title you chose for your comment was based on a misunderstanding of how we work.
I glanced at the disputed edit, and I'm afraid I can't be of much help. You want to add the word queer and something about pink. Dick is gay, so I suppose he took umbrage at your edit. If you had approached him with some calm civility, he probably would have explained. I can't explain the revert, since I'm not gay. The word queer does strike me as gratuitously offensive, and the pink thing was just strange, meaningless to me, so.... —Stephen (Talk) 06:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Queer has not been offensive in decades; calling it a slur in 2017 is absurd, but it's also clear that I was showing a specific example of where גאה was being translated as queer; I didn't just add it to insult this user. Ligata (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as pinkwashing goes you are literally on a dictionary site. Ligata (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Apart from this I just went to remove the translation "gay" because it is not synonymous with LGBT (whereas queer ironically is), and found that it had been locked. Equating gay with LGBT is offensive to bisexual and transgender people, and to favor the word "gay" over "queer" as a synonym for LGBT demonstrates a high degree of entitlement on the part of those who do so. Ligata (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And sorry for so many messages but there is a very good discussion of the word queer in this English-Arabic gender term dictionary. The offensive sense of the word is very 1990s. I grew up being called it as a slur, but no one does anymore because it's become one of the main identities that non-heteronormative people choose to go by. Ligata (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Since it is sensitive, why are you pushing for your edits? Why don't you just move on and stop wasting everybody's time? Dick has edited for his reasons. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08::::57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Because the page, as it stands, is offensive. It uses LGBT synonymously with gay. I am not wasting people's time; I am trying to improve the dictionary by correcting such erasure. I am not even pushing for queer at this point, only for the removal of the term gay as a synonym for LGBT. Ligata (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Like I'm not making this stuff up out of nowhere; there is a high degree of discourse you can find on why "the gay community" is problematic and why queer is actually less problematic. Ligata (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And look at the edit history. I asked for an explanation politely the first time he reverted my revert. The second time he did so it was clear he had not the slightest interest in explaining his actions, so I responded appropriately to this entitled way of editing. Ligata (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This user is now being even more arbitrary, deleting the translation "LGBT" that is still attested in one of the given examples on the basis that he personally disagrees with the translation. What ever happened to the process of requesting verification? I'm sure more attestations could be drug up with sufficient time, but this user is acting as a dictator who thinks they are the absolute authority on the Hebrew language. Ligata (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You're wasting your time trying to discuss it with me. As I mentioned above, I know little about the subject and am not competent to make judgments concerning it. You need to discuss it with Dick Laurent if you can get him to discuss it with you. After your antagonistic comments, I rather doubt that he will cooperate with you. —Stephen (Talk) 00:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Telugu poetic tems[edit]

I have created some Telugu poetic terms in the lines similar to ఒప్పులకుప్పా (oppulakuppā). They are చెలియా (celiyā), రాజా (rājā). I have a small doubt. These words are also the alternative vocative singular case forms of చెలియ (celiya) and రాజు (rāju) respectively. How to add this in their pages. Kindly advise.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You can do it as I did in చెలియ (celiya), using {{vocative singular of}}. Or you can put it like this instead: ''alternative [[vocative]] singular of'' '''{{l|te|చెలియ}}'''. —Stephen (Talk) 03:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the grammarians, these vocative forms should be ఓ చెలియా (ō celiyā), ఓ రాజా (ō rājā); similar to ఓ శివా (ō śivā); ఓ రామా (ō rāmā). Can we consider these as synonyms.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Synonym means "having the same meaning", so if చెలియ (celiya) can mean the same as ఓ చెలియా (ō celiyā), then they are synonyms. —Stephen (Talk) 15:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey Stephen. Thanks for the edits on vien, val, quier, faz. I never knew about those apocopic verb forms in Spanish. In Catalan conjugations, I'd expect forms like above, so it's interesting to find out about this piece of grammar. --WF on Holiday (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting. You've heard of Latinate English, which is heavy with Latin-based words (such as apian, corvine, aural, ocular, ungual, stellar, sororal, uxorial, igneous, portal, arboreal, paludal, tintinnabulary, sartorial, acerbic, adipose, aedile, subimago, eruginous, aestivation, estuary, alacrity, ancillary, equanimous, gibbous, homuncular, jejunal, cislunar, lupine, and so on) ... Spanish can also be Latinized. The difference is that many people find Latinate English difficult to understand, tiring to read, and generally weak. They don't like it. On the other hand, Spanish-speakers are impressed by Latinized Spanish, even if they have trouble understanding it. If a company wants to make an important contract pop, they Latinize it. It's also useful for poetry. —Stephen (Talk) 03:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Good. That was a list of really ugly English words. As for Spanish, the legal world is an area we haven't really explored much in WT. Category:es:Law isn't badly populated, but could be bigger. This is probably because it's very advanced stuff. But I'm sure one day I'll find a nice list of Spanish legal terms and add a few. And perhaps there should be a mention of the future subjunctive, only really found these days in legal Spanish and a handful of set expressions (I don't remember those OTTOMH, maybe you can jog my memory...). Anyway, before I start rambling, I'll leave you. --WF back from hols (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
If you see a Spanish future subjunctive, it probably will be following a verb that requires a subordinate verb in the subjunctive (wishes, emotions, impersonal expressions, recommendations, doubt/denial, and ojalá). Usually these verbs are followed by que, occasionally by quien or como, and finally the subjunctive verb:
agradecer que, no tener que, mandar que, desear que, preferir que, no encontrar que, exigir que, insistir que, buscar que, pedir que, necesitar que, esperar que, querer que, no haber que
alegrarse de que, quejarse que, lamentar que, enojar que, sorprender que, molestar que, tener miedo de que, gustar que, encantar que, sentir que, maravillar que, estar contento que, estar enojado que, estar triste que, temer que, extrañarse que
impersonal expressions:
es necesario que, es extraño que, no es cierto que, es probable que, es agradable que, es bueno que, es curioso que, es raro que, es dudoso que, es recomendable que, es esencial que, es una lástima que, es estupendo que, es urgente que, es vergonzoso que, es importante que, no es cierto que, es increíble que, no es hecho que, es malo que, no es verdad que
aconsejar que, sugerir que, ordenar que, dejar que, hacer que, mandar que, recomendar que, proponer que, decir que, rogar que, exigir que, insistir que, prohibir que, suplicar que
dudar que, no pensar que, no estar seguro que, no comprender que, no creer que, negar que, no suponer que, no parecer que
One of these verb phrases in the main clause is in the indicative mood, then a relative pronoun (usually que) connects to the noun clause or dependent clause, and then if the English dependent verb is future tense, the Spanish will be future subjunctive:
No creo que vinieren mis padres.
I don't think my parents will come. —Stephen (Talk) 02:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Telugu adjectives[edit]

అయిన (ayina) and ఐన (aina) are added to Telugu nouns to convert them to adjectives. Example: విలువైన (viluvaina) and విలువయిన (viluvayina) meaning valuable. What are these words. Are they postpositions or suffixes. There are many adjectives with this endings. Thank you.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

References: అయిన and ఐన] both are derived from అగు (agu, to become).Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that అయిన (ayina) and ఐన (aina) are past participles. A past participle is a verb form that is often used like an adjective: stolen (from steal) ... a stolen car; broken (from break} ... a broken arm; required (from require) ... the required documents. —Stephen (Talk) 09:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I have created the pages for అయిన and ఐన. Are they correct.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a small change. I think they are good. —Stephen (Talk) 09:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you sir.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In similar lines, తగిన (tagina), తగని (tagani) are also used to convert verb తగు (tagu) to adjectives. but are they present participles or past participles. తగని is mentioned as negative participle. The reference: తగు. I have created pages for these entries.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think these are present participles. In general, the past participle in English ends in -ed (example: an accomplished deed, a deed that was accomplished), and the present participle in English often ends in -ing (example: running water, water that is running). Tha pages you have created look good to me. —Stephen (Talk) 06:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Stephen: I had to create a new account for Wiktionary after both forgetting my original password and not linking a working email address for this. Might you remove me from "autopatrollers" for the time being and insert a move/redirect from "Reidca" to "MDCorebear"?. Thank you! MDCorebear (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen (Talk) 20:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

«amiga mía»[edit]

Is it preferable to say ‘amiga mía’ in your translation because it makes specific use of the vocative case? I know that it’s a tough question; you don’t have to answer it elaborately if you don’t know how to. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 07:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's because of the vocative case, although I can't completely rule it out. I think it's something like we have in English where we can say, "see ya later, pal of mine", while "see ya later, my pal" sounds less natural. Of course, in English we'd normally say "see ya later, pal", but that's the trouble with trying to equate Spanish with English. In Spanish, the possessive pronoun is needed, either mi or mío. I really have never heard a good explanation for this. Some people say that amigo mío makes the relationship closer, but I don't think that's right. Or possibly makes it stand out for being less used. Whatever it is, eventually you start to develop a feel for it. —Stephen (Talk) 07:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I keep thinking of buen viaje a México, mi amigo versus buen viaje a México, amigo mío... I sort of sense that buen viaje a México, mi amigo sounds slightly sarcastic, and that he is perhaps not really a friend, and maybe he isn't actually wishing him well. OTOH, buen viaje a México, amigo mío seems heartfelt and literal. Spanish is often spoken with very sweet words that really have the opposite meaning, and therefore vicious and nasty. Like one woman telling another that her hair is so lovely and her dress is just beautiful, but meaning exactly the opposite, that her hair is like a mop and her dress makes her look like a slut. Spanish-speakers can kill with the prettiest words. —Stephen (Talk) 20:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Geez, Steve, get a room. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 03:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
All in due course. —Stephen (Talk) 22:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


A comprehensive index of resources for ancient languages: Lexicity. —Stephen (Talk) 23:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect accents in Russian[edit]

Hi Stephen. You made a few mistakes adding accent marks to the Russian quote at здешний (diff). I have fixed it (diff). Please be more careful. It's better not to have accents than to have the wrong accents. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I felt like дворя́не was correct, like англичане, but starling.rinet said it was дворяне́. Starling.rinet apparently made a mistake. As for старину, I think it can have three different stress patterns, including ста́рину and старину́. —Stephen (Talk) 19:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Indigenes and telecommunications[edit]

Is there a tendency amongst Natives in Australia, the Americas, and elsewhere to intentionally avoid advanced technologies like telephones and computers? The few indigenes with whom I’ve spoken seem to resent much of modern technology, and the ones who don’t seem to have lost their connexions with their tribes, having more‐or‐less assimilated into European cultures. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 22:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, no. They like the cellphones, computers, smartphones, etc., but many of them are extremely poor. Among the Navajo, there are still many people who live in self-built one-room homes without electricity or running water. So the cost of internet connections, etc., is often a problem. Even now, their reservations often do not have sufficient access to water sources. The Standing Rock Sioux have only one source of water, and Trump and the Republicans are building an oil pipeline over it (the pipelines always fail eventually), so that source will become poisoned before long. The Navajos depend on several rivers including the San Juan River. The San Juan was recently poisoned by a huge accidental release of toxic acid mine waste (including lead and arsenic), and thousands of Navajo farmers and ranchers have been left without any water for their crops and animals. Trump has seen to it that the EPA has ignored this disaster and there are no plans for cleanup. Most Navajo who were not affected by the toxic mine spill nevertheless have only one gallon of water per day for cooking, cleaning, and bathing. This all makes having internet access very difficult.
Also, when they can manage to pay for access, they are targeted by scammers, since the Native Americans are often unsophisticated and unworldly. They are very traditional and are solidly against the use of any sort of pornography, yet when they search online, even just on Facebook, they often get porn sent to their phones by malware or robots, and for them it is intolerable. So they don't intentionally avoid advanced technologies, but there are huge barriers placed in their way, and the Republicans continually try to steal what little they have and take advantage of them. —Stephen (Talk) 23:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)